1. Sole respondent has filed application, Flag-1 raising preliminary objection for summary dismissal of the election petition under sub-section (1) of Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") asserting non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of sub-sections (1)(a), (b) of Section 83 of the Act, as according to the sole respondent the election petition does not disclose complete cause of action, is fit to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. During hearing of the preliminary objection as also in the written submissions filed in support of the preliminary objection it has been submitted that election-petitioner alleged in the election petition that sole respondent captured booth as also solicited, procured help from the officials for success in the election but the election petition, according to the sole respondent, miserably failed to disclose, allege against the sole respondent material facts and full particulars constituting the serious allegation of booth capturing and procuring help from the officials for winning the election, for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions contained in sub-sections (1)(a), (b) of Section 83 of the Act, the election petition is fit to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this connection it is submitted on behalf of the sole respondent that the contents of Paragraphs 9 to 16 of the election petition are vague, general in nature not constituting any specific allegation of booth capturing or procuring help from the officials made out against the respondent, in the circumstances, the election petition is fit to be dismissed summarily for not disclosing any cause of action. As regards allegations made out in paragraph 17 of the election petition it is submitted that thereunder Superintendent of Police, Lakhisarai is alleged to have captured Booth Nos. 62 to 72 of Lakhisarai Vidhan Sabha Constituency preventing the genuine voters from casting their votes but according to sole respondent the allegations contained in the said paragraph-17 does not constitute the charge of booth capturing against the sole respondent as in the entire election petition nowhere it has been alleged that Superintendent of Police, Lakhisarai while capturing Booth Nos. 62 to 72 of Lakhisarai Vidhan Sabha Constituency was either acting as an agent of the sole respondent or had captured those booths with his consent. The allegation of booth capturing by the Superintendent of Police, Lakhisarai without the consent of the sole respondent will not constitute the allegation of booth capturing against the sole respondent. In this connection reliance is placed on the provisions contained in sub-section (8) of Section 123 of the Act read with its explanation as also on the provisions contained in Section 100(1 )(d)(ii) of the Act and it is submitted that the overt act of capturing booth nos. 62 to 72 of Lakhisarai Vidhan Sabha Constituency by the Superintendent of Police, Lakhisarai did not materially affect the result of the election as the margin of victory of respondent is more than one lac votes and capturing of eleven booths by the Superintendent of Police, Lakhisarai had no bearing on his election. In this connection, it is further submitted that in the entire election petition petitioner has not given even the name of a single elector who was prevented from voting on account of the booths being captured by the Superintendent of Police, Lakhisarai and others, as such, by not furnishing the name of the electors prevented from coming to the booth for exercising their franchise election petitioner has failed to furnish material fact(s) and he has only submitted allegations by quoting the provision of law and, thus, election petition suffers from material facts and is fit to be dismissed summarily. In support of the aforesaid contention learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment