The court emphasized that an election petition cannot be dismissed solely based on some allegations lacking material particulars and that the affidavit was properly filled and attested by the Notary Public.

1. By this order I shall decide the following two issues which were treated as preliminary issues:

1) Whether the petition is not maintainable in view of the preliminary objections raised by the respondent? – OPD

2) Whether the nomination of respondent No.1 was not accompanied by the validly sworn affidavit and was, therefore, liable to be rejected? – OPP

Issue No.1

2. The onus of proving this issue was on defendant/respondent. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner had not stated the full particulars and material facts in respect of corrupt practices set forth by him in election petition and on this ground the election petition was liable to be dismissed. He relied on Subhash Desai v. Sharad J.Rao and Ors. AIR 1994 SC 2277.

3. During arguments, learned Counsel for the respondent pointed that in the petition in ground „B?, the petitioner has stated that Mr. Ajay Makan threatened the electors of Defence Colony area in a meeting that in case they would not vote for the respondent then the „ganda nalla? would be kept open and they would have to bear the smell and suffer. It is submitted that the petitioner has not given the details as to when this meeting was held, where this meeting was held, who all were present in the meeting and who informed the petitioner about this meeting. The allegations in ground „B? lacked the material particulars and the petition was liable to be dismissed. Similarly in ground „C? the petitioner alleged that respondent himself and through his agents and workers distributed liquor to the voters of the area on 28.11.2008 from 7.30 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. and Mr. Ashwani Gupta, election agent of the petitioner himself saw distribution of the liquor by the agents of the respondent and he made a complaint in this regard to police. It is submitted that it is not given by the petitioner, as to who were the agents and workers of the respondent who distributed the liquor and who were the persons who received the liquor. Though, it is claimed that Mr. Ashwani Gupta himself saw the agent but the name of the agent of respondent has not been given by the petitioner. The allegations lacked the material particulars and anybody could be brought to the Court by petitioner to show that he was agent and worker of the respondent irrespective of the fact that respondent knew him at all or not. He stated that the allegations of this corrupt practices lacked the material particulars. Similarly in ground „D? election petitioner has alleged that respondent and his agents hired/procured vehicles for the conveyance of the electors to the polling stations nos. 1-5, 24-31, 59, 60, 63, 65 & 70 and back to their places. The petitioner has not given the vehicle numbers so hired/procured by the respondent as alleged by the petitioner and thus the allegation lacked the material particulars.

4. No doubt the three allegations which have been pointed out by the respondent do not contain details as submitted by the respondent but this election petition is not based only on these three allegations. In ground „E? the petitioner has alleged that because of 2872 invalid and duplicate votes created at the behest of the respondent and polled in favour of the respondent, the results of election were materially affected. In ground „F? it is further alleged that 10789 invalid and duplicate votes were wrongly created by the respondent either himself or with his consent by his agents and these invalid votes were polled in favour of the respondent which also materially affected the results of the election. In para „G? it is stated that there were 67 number of votes of the persons who had not completed 18 years of age and details of names of these voters had been annexed by the petitioner as annexure P-7. In ground „H? it is submitted that 229 votes had been casted from the list of deleted voters and he had annexed annexure P-8 showing the names of deleted voters who had voted.

5. It may be that some of the corrupt practices a