The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement of a concise statement of material facts and particulars of corrupt practices in an election petition, as prescribed by Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Rakesh Kumar, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 80, 80A and 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the "RP Act"). As pleaded, the petitioner was an election agent of one Sri Priya Ranjan who was a candidate of the Indian National Congress and contested Legislative Assembly election from the Constituency No. 230 - Gaya Town (Bihar). The Legislative Assembly election was conducted in the year 2015. The election was held on 16th October 2015 and result was declared on 8th November, 2015. From the said constituency i.e. 230-Gaya Town Constituency the Respondent was declared as returned candidate. In the said election he (respondent) got total 66,891 votes whereas, the candidate for whom the petitioner was election agent got 44102 votes.

2. In the present election petition the petitioner has mainly prayed for cancellation of nomination paper of the respondent. It is evident that earlier the present election petition was presented on 15.12.2015. The election petitioner was duly identified by his counsel namely, Mr. Md. Irshad. Thereafter, the petition was examined by the stamp reporting section and number of defects were pointed out and as such, on 11.02.2016 learned counsel for the election petitioner informed the court regarding removal of the defects and as such, by order dated 11.02.2016 the present election petition was admitted for hearing and notice was directed to be issued to the sole respondent. After receipt of notice the sole respondent appeared through his counsel and on 4th May 2016 written statement was filed on behalf of the returned candidate i.e. respondent. Besides raising other objections the respondent also raised an objection regarding maintainability of the election petition for want of cause of action. Subsequently, the election petitioner filed an application for permitting him to appear in person. The said permission was granted and learned lawyer who had earlier filed "Vakalatnama" on behalf of the election petitioner was discharged from liability. On 12.05.2016 the election petitioner was permitted to appear in person and on his request case was adjourned for filing proposed issues by both the parties, which was subsequently filed. Thereafter, the petitioner engaged one another counsel namely Sri Jai Vardhan Narayan, who has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The respondent/returned candidate thereafter filed an interlocutory application vide I.A. No. 6627 of 2016 under Section 83 and 86 of the RP Act read with Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondent by way of filing the said interlocutory application prayed for rejection of the election petition on the ground of non disclosure of any cause of action. After filing of the interlocutory application vide I.A. No. 6627 of 2016, whereby the respondent had made a prayer for rejecting the election petition on the ground of absence of any cause of action, the election petitioner filed an amendment petition vide I.A. No. 7997 of 2016. The interlocutory application praying for rejection of election petition i.e. I.A. No. 6627 of 2016 was filed on 17th August 2016 whereas the petition for amendment i.e. I.A. No. 7997 of 2016 was filed on behalf of the election petitioner on 28th September 2016. Thereafter, both the petitions were heard and order was reserved on 24.01.2017.

3. Since in the present election petition interlocutory application was filed on behalf of the returned candidate i.e. the sole respondent for rejection of the election petition on the ground of absence of any cause of action, the court is of the opinion that it would be just and proper to quote the reliefs which have been sought for in the main election petition, which are as follows:-

(i). For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of MANDAMUS, commanding and directing the Respondent nos. 1 to 4 for cancellation of nomination paper of Respondent nos. 5.

(ii). For issuance of an appropriate writ, order