This petition is filed under Order VI Rule 16 r/w Sections 21 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 r/w Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'the R.P. Act') to strike out the pleadings.

2. The petitioner herein is the 1st respondent (returned candidate) and the 1st respondent herein is the election petitioner in the main election petition.

3. The brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present petition may be portrayed as follows:

The petitioner herein filed the present application alleging that the 1st respondent herein filed the main election petition to declare his election held in April, 2009 for Vijayawada Parliamentary Constituency as void and to declare the 1st respondent herein as validly elected. The 1st respondent herein alleged in the election petition that the petitioner herein married one Janaki during the life time of his spouse, L. Padma and begot a son by name Harman and thereby committed an offence of bigamy punishable under Section 494 IPC and Section 7 of Hindu Marriage Act. He omitted to show the said Janaki as the dependent and not disclosed her assets in the affidavit filed by him along with the nomination paper and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 125-A of the R.P. Act and he intentionally omitted to produce a document before a public servant though he is bound to produce such document to the Returning Officer and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 175 CLP.C. But, the petitioner herein denied the said allegations as vague, not true and not relevant for the purpose of deciding whether the election of the petitioner herein is void. The 1st respondent herein only pleaded that the petitioner herein is liable to be punished under Indian Penal Code. The Election Tribunal has got jurisdiction to decide the validity of his election only on the grounds mentioned in the R.P. Act and it has no jurisdiction to decide whether the petitioner herein committed any offence under Indian Penal Code and to disqualify him.

Petitioner herein stated that in the affidavit filed along with nomination paper, he had shown the assets and liabilities of himself, his spouse L. Padma who is alive and his three dependent sons. The said Janaki is not his wife or dependent. The allegation with regard to incurring excess expenditure is vague, untrue and irrelevant. The allegations that he is the Chairman of Lanco Foundation and spending money to bribe and lure the voters, that after announcing general elections, dated 02-03-2009, he has given huge advertisement to promote his political career and lured the electorate through Lanco Power Plants and he indulged in corrupt practices are vague and false. Lanco Foundations is Trust registered under the Indian Trusts Act whereas Lanco Power Plants is registered as a public limited company under the Indian Companies Act and not he is personally responsible and his election cannot be set aside for the alleged acts of the Trust and Company. He is neither Chairman of the Trust or Director of the Company. He seized (sic. ceased) to be the Chairman of the Trust or Director of the Company w.e.f. 2003 onwards. The 1st respondent herein has not has not stated the material facts and material particulars like who are the voters that were bribed and lured to strengthen his political career. The allegation that he committed grave irregularities and illegalities and deliberately influenced the voters in his favour in violation of the Conduct of Election Rules and instructions issued by the Election Commission and he is liable to be disqualified are vague and devoid of material facts and material particulars. The 1st respondent herein has not stated which facts are true and he has not stated the material facts and material particulars of corrupt practices.

The 1st respondent herein who claims to belong to the freedom fighters family and practising as an advocate has secured only 868 votes out of the total votes of 10,88