The election petition must provide evidence to demonstrate that the election results were materially affected by the alleged irregularities.

By this Election Petition, the election petitioner Sri Bijay Kumar Singh has challenged the election of Sri Sumit Kumar Singh, the sole-respondent who has been declared elected as a member of 15th Bihar Legislative Assembly from 243, Chakai General Assembly Constituency in the district of Jamui for which elections were held on 01.11.2010.

2. At elections, after scrutiny, 12 candidates were found validly nominated to contest the elections which list was published by the Returning Officer on 18.10.2010. The elections were held on 01.11.2010 at 286 Booths. On 24.11.2010, counting was done and result declared. The election petitioner who was the official candidate of Lok Jan Shakti Party secured 21,618 votes and came second. The sole contesting respondent Sri Sumit Kumar Singh who was the official candidate of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha secured 21,806 votes, and was accordingly declared the winner by a margin of only 188 votes. The third was Sri Falguni Prasad Yadav the official candidate of Bhartiya Janta Party who secured 20,259 votes, the difference being 1,547 votes from the winning candidate. The rest of candidates including the Congress candidate could not cross four figures total.

3. As would be seen from the above, the winning margin was a narrow 188 votes giving cause to the election petitioner to raise all pleas that could be available to impeach the elections, but fortunately, there has been no allegation leveled with regard to any corrupt practices. At the very outset, it may be noticed that as the returned candidate i.e. the sole-respondent Sri Sumit Kumar Singh happened to be the son of a sitting minister of the coalition government of Janta Dal United and Bhartiya Janta Party, a feeble suggestion was made by the election petitioner that the official involved in the elections were more favourably disposed to the returned candidate. Rightly this was not pursued by the election petitioner seriously in any respect.

4. The election petition was filed on 07.12.2010. By order dated 20.01.2011 notices were directed to be issued to the sole contesting respondent through two processes firstly directly to the contesting respondent and then court made a request to the Secretary of Bihar Legislative Assembly to serve a copy of the election petition on the sole respondent as he had been elected a Member of the Legislative Assembly, but regrettably the Secretary of the Legislative Assembly returned the same without service pointing out to the court that the Secretary of the Legislative Assembly could not be made to act as an agent of the court nor was its job to serve notice on its members forgetting that this court had only requested the cooperation to expedite the matter of appearance. Ultimately when all other modes to serve notice on the elected Member could not fructify, by order dated 25.03.2011, court directed to publish notices for substituted service through newspapers and it is only thereafter that the sole respondent appeared through Sri Prabhat Kumar Verma, learned Senior Counsel. Upon written statement being filed learned counsels agreed and eight issues were framed by order dated 15.07.2011 which are as under: -

(i) Whether the election petition itself is liable to be dismissed in view of Section 86 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 inasmuch as two copies of the election petition have not been submitted along with the election petition and served to the respondent as required under Section 81 of the said Act ?

(ii) Whether election petition is liable to be dismissed for not setting forth full particulars supported by verification under the forms (statutorily prescribed in relation to allegation) with respect to allegation of corrupt practices even though there is no such issue?

(iii) Whether the election petition discloses any cause of action and, in absence thereof, is liable to be dismissed in view of Section 83 read with Section 87 and/or Order VI Rule 16 or Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Proc