JUDGMENT

Goutam Bhaduri, J. - Heard on application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC filed by the respondent No.1/returned candidate.

2. An application has been preferred on behalf of the respondent No.1/returned candidate that the challenge is made to the election of the constituency No.25 of Kota assembly of the district Bilaspur but the prayer as has been made in the election petition do not give any cause of action for which the challenge can be made under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act, 1951'). It is contended that neither any grounds which require on which the election petition can be entertained have been pleaded nor has been projected in the pleadings.

3. Learned counsel would submit that the main contention of the petitioner is that the manifesto of the petitioner's party namely "Bharat Bhoomi Party" of which the petitioner was a candidate, was not published in the nation wide circulating newspaper. It is stated that by such election petition it is pleaded that since the publication of the manifesto was not made in the newspaper which is circulating nationwide, the elections of the other States which were held along with the Chhattisgarh namely Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, Rajasthan and Mijorum were also affected. It is stated that since the election of the entire Chhattisgarh constituencies has been prayed to be set aside, therefore, the present election petition is not sustainable as it do not give this Court jurisdiction to exercise the power under Section 100 of the Act, 1951. Reading the prayer learned counsel would submit that along with Kota constituency assembly bearing No.25 which was held on 11.12.2018 has been prayed to be canceled along with 72 other seats of entire Chhattisgarh assembly. Referring to section 80 and 81 of the Act of 1951 counsel would submit that the word any election has been defined in section 81 which means that election as a whole cannot be challenged. Reliance was placed in in between Indrajit Barua & ors. Vs. Election Commission of India & ors, 1986 AIR(SC) 103 , in between P.R. Francis Vs. A.V. Aryian & Anr, 1968 AIR(Ker) 252 and would submit that election of 72 seats the election as a whole cannot be challenged and the scheme of the Act is that each election has to be challenged by filing a separate election petition, therefore no cause of action arises for this court to go into trial in this election petition which is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.

4. Despite the repeated pass overs, the petitioner did not appear and on the earlier occasion too when the case was fixed no representation was made on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, in absence of any representation on behalf of the petitioner the arguments were heard on the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

5. By way of the present election the following prayer has been made:-

"(i) To declare the election of Kota Assembly 25 held on 11/12/2018 void alongwith 72 other seats of C.G. Assembly.

(ii) The cost of petition may be allowed to the petitioner alongwith any other suitable declaration which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.

(iii) This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to pass an interim direction to the respondents Election Commission to publish the MANIFESTO of petitioner's party before Parliamentary Election, 2019 for fair election not only in the State of Chhattisgarh but also in the entire Country in the nationwide newspapers, in the interest of justice."

6. At para 2 of the petition it is pleaded that the Election Commission was under responsibility to publish the party manifesto though it was given before the date of election. Consequently, the manifesto which was not published, the public could not read the same because of the polling date and time as it was published on 20.11.2018 little time hence remained and could not select the honest candidates. It is stated because the electors could not read the manifesto it caused an adverse effect on