The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of essential pleading of corrupt practice under section 123(3) of R.P. Act in Election Petitions.

1. These are applications by the Returned Candidate invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC for short) and seeking dismissal of the Election Petition in limine. Alternatively, it is prayed that the below mentioned paragraphs in each of these Election Petitions be struck off in exercise of the powers conferred upon this Court vide order VI Rule 16 of the CPC:-

E.P. No.11 / 09 (para No.14 (a) to 14(s) and 14(t) to 14(w); E.P.No.13/ 09 [para 3(i). E.P. No.14/09 [para 2((i). E.P.No.15/09 [para 3(i).

2. Application No.7 of 2010 is preferred in Election Petition No.11 of 2009 i.e. By Mr. Kamat Gurudas Vasant, who is respondent No.4 and he states that he contested the elections to the Loksabha in General Elections held in the year 2009 from Mumbai North West Constituency. The elections were declared on 2nd April 2009 and the programme notified for various stages of the electoral process stated that the same would come into effect on 2nd April 2009 and continue till 16th April 2009. It is stated that the nominations were filed within time and after the polling results were declared. He is elected to the Loksabha as he polled the highest number of votes.

3. The petitioner is a voter and his name is mentioned in the Voters’ List of Dindoshi in Mumbai North West Electoral Roll at part 99 serial No.647. He states that the Returned Candidate i.e. respondent No.4 is a member of Indian National Congress which is a recognised Political Party. The application seeking dismissal of the election petition proceeds on the basis that amongst several contesting candidates at the poll, respondent No.4 got the highest votes.

4. It is urged that this election petition as filed is liable to be dismissed in limine because it does not disclose any cause of action. In the other election petitions, the petitioners are Voters. The returned candidate in these petitions contested and won from the following Loksabha constituencies:-

E.P. 13-09 (Mumbai South Central Constituency) (Eknath M. Gaikwad) E.P. 14-09 (Mumbai North Central Constituency) (Dutta Priya Sunil) E.P. 15-09 (Mumbai South Constituency) (Deora Milind Murli)

5. Each of the above candidates were declared elected at the same General Elections i.e. Of 2009. Their elections are questioned and challenged in the other election petitions, wherein identical applications seeking dismissal of the petitions in limine have been made by the returned candidates. These applications invoke identical powers of this Court permitting summary dismissal of election petitions.

6. The stand taken is identical in all these applications viz., that the election petition does not disclose any cause of action. In the affidavits in support of these applications, it is urged by the returned candidates that the only allegation in the election petition is that the Manifesto of Indian National Congress (INC), contains several statements and particularly those reproduced in the election petitions. It is alleged in the petition that the INC who had nominated the returned candidates had assured in its manifesto that

“For the first time a separate Ministry of Minority Affairs was created in May 2004 and the Rajinder Sachar Committee was set up to look into the social economic and educational status of Muslim community in the country. The implementation and the recommendations of the Committee is already under way and equal opportunity commission will be established by law. Nearly four lakh scholarships have been awarded in the past few years alone for pre-matric, post matric and professional course, more than 50% of it being awarded to girl students. The Prime Minister’s 15 point programme was launched in June 2006 with physically and financially tracts of minorities in all welfare programmes of Central Government. Special Development taken for the 19 minority districts in different States had been introduced.”

7. According to the election petitioner, the