A.RAJASEKHAR REDDY
Kothapalli Geetha – Appellant
Versus
Gummidi Sandhya Rani – Respondent
A. RAJASEKHAR REDDY, J.
1. 1st respondent in the EP No. 30 of 2014 filed this election application, being E.A. No. 11 of 2015, under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, read with Section 86 of Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, (for short, 'the RP Act') to reject the election petition filed by the election petitioner-1st respondent herein, (hereinafter referred to as 'election petitioner') on the ground of lack of cause of action. The case of the petitioner herein (hereinafter referred to as 'returned candidate') is that in the general elections she contested the election to the seat of Member of Parliament from Araku parliamentary constituency, seat a reserved for Scheduled Tribe (ST) and having emerged as a successful candidate was declared elected as Member of Parliament on 16.5.2014. That as per Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act, the plaint of the election petition should contain a concise statement of material facts on which the election petitioner relies and such a statement of material facts is mandatory to maintain the election petition. That in the instant case, no such concise statement of material facts is stated by the election petitioner in the plaint and the election petition
Virender Nath Gautam v. Satpal Singh
Nandiesha Reddy v. Kavitha Mahesh
Hori Shanker Jain v. Sonia Gandhi
T.H. Musthaffa v. M.P. Varghese
Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India
Nimmaka Jaya Raju v. Satrucharla Vikyaya Rama Raju
Ram Prasad Sarma v. Mani Kumar Subba
Anil R. Deshmukh v. Onkar N. Wagh
Umesh Challiyill v. K.P. Rajendran
Vinod Ramachandra Ghosalka v. Sunit Dattatray Tatkare
Virendra Kumar Saklecha v. Jagjiwan
Rajendra Pratap Bhanj Deo v. Regu Mahesh @ Regu Maheswar Rao
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.