An election petition must disclose specific material facts and particulars of corrupt practices; failure to do so results in dismissal under the Representation of the People Act.

JUDGMENT :

URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.

1. By the present election petition, the petitioner has challenged the election of respondent No.5 - Nitin Jairam Gadkari on the ground that the Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) and its workers have violated the Model Code of Conduct. It is alleged that Software was created and slips were distributed to voters having photographs, name of respondent No.5 - Nitin Jairam Gadkari and symbol of the BJP. It is further alleged that machines were given to the representatives of all booths of Nagpur. The main function of the machine was to print the voters’ details having photos, name of respondent No.5 - Nitin Jairam Gadkari and symbol of the BJP. Thus, respondent No.5 - Nitin Jairam Gadkari and the BJP committed violation of Code of Conduct. The respondent No.5 - Nitin Jairam Gadkari by means of corrupt practices violated the Model Code of Conduct. Various complaints including the complaint of the petitioner were lodged as to the said violation. However, no cognizance was taken and hence the petition.

2. By this petition, the petitioner has claimed following reliefs:

I) Allow the petition and thereby direct the respondents authorities to conduct fresh and fair enquiry regarding complaint given by the petitioner and other candidates and take proper legal action;

II) To declare the election of respondent No.5 for Nagpur Parliamentary Constituency (No.10) in General Lok Sabha Election held in April 2024 is illegal and further be pleased to set aside the result of election in favour of respondent No.5, declared by respondent No.4.

III) Direct the respondent authorities to conduct fresh election in the Nagpur Constituency, if the irregularities are proved during the enquiry.

IV) Grant any other relief as this court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. In response to the notice, respondent No.5 - Nitin Jairam Gadkari appeared and filed an application vide Civil Application No.139/2025 under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC with Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (the RP Act) for rejection of election petition and Civil Application No.140/2025 under Order VI Rule 16 the CPC for striking out of pleadings.

The application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is filed on the ground that:

(1) The petition does not disclose any cause of action. No cause of action discloses as petition does not disclose violation of the Model Code of Conduct. It does not disclose whether violation is by the returning candidate or his election agent or with their authorization are concerned;

(2) The material facts such as who distributed the slips, at which place (specific place and time not mentioned). In absence of specific cause of action, election petition deserves to be dismissed;

(3) The material fact that the election has been materially affected has not been pleaded;

(4) Vague pleading as to the violation of Model Code of Conduct by the BJP and its workers is not sufficient;

(5) The allegations are against party in general and not against returning candidate respondent No.5 - Nitin Jairam Gadkari;

(6) Thus, the materials facts that the election was materially affected itself is not pleaded;

(7) Affidavit and verification appended to the petition are wholly defective. In the affidavit, general statement para no.1 to 6 are true to his knowledge is mentioned. In fact, the petitioner to clarify which portion of the petition is as per his personal knowledge and which portion as per his information.

4. Thus, it was contended that from reading of the election petition, it can be clearly seen that absolutely no cause of action is made out by the petitioner for challenging the election of respondent No.5 - Nitin Jairam Gadkari. The petitioner has indulged in making false, frivolous, baseless, and irresponsible allegations without any basis and does not constitute a single material fact giving rise to cause of action taken as a whole. The election petition does not disclose single cause of action and the sa