An election petition must disclose material facts and particulars; vague allegations without evidence do not establish a cause of action.

JUDGMENT :

MINI PUSHKARNA, J.

I.A. 1984/2023 (Application under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 CPC)

1. The instant petition has been filed challenging the election of respondent no.1 and seeking to set aside/cancel the bye-election of the assembly constituency, i.e., AC-39, Rajinder Nagar, Assembly Constituency in Delhi and praying that the election of respondent no.1 be declared as void. The petitioner has challenged the candidature of the respondent alleging non-compliance of election code and conduct by the respondent. It is alleged that the respondent filed a deficient nomination affidavit by concealing the name of his spouse. The present petition has been filed on account of inaction of the returning officer to take any action, despite multiple complaints by the petitioner in this regard.

2. It is to be noted that the petitioner had also filed his nomination from the same constituency and had polled 18 votes, thereby, losing to the returned candidate, respondent no. 1, who polled 40,319 votes.

3. By way of the present application, the respondent no.1 has prayed for rejection of the present Election Petition under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”).

4. In support of the application for rejection of the present petition, following submissions have been made, on behalf of respondent no.1:

4.1 The present petition is liable to be rejected, as on the face of it, the petition fails miserably to disclose any cause of action for declaring the election of respondent no.1 as null and void.

4.2 It is alleged by the petitioner that respondent no.1 is in violation of Section 125 and 126, read with Section 100 of the Representation of People‟s Act, 1951 (“1951 Act”). However, the petitioner has not brought on record any facts, which would invite the rigors of any of the provisions. Election of a candidate cannot be challenged on vague and unsubstantiated allegations.

4.3 The petitioner has failed to disclose any basis or source of information, on which he has raised his allegations of alleged non-disclosure in the affidavit. The petitioner has failed to bring on record any document to show that the information provided by respondent no.1, is incorrect. The respondent no.1 has duly filled all the columns with the relevant information.

4.4 There are no allegations/averments in the entire petition, which can be subject matter of trial. There are no material particulars given, which could be tested and tried.

4.5 The petitioner's primary objection to election of the respondent, with respect to non- mentioning of name of the respondent‟s spouse in Form 26 filed with the nomination papers, is incorrect and without any proof, as the respondent had duly filled the said form and stated “not applicable” in the relevant column.

4.6 It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent has committed any illegality which would have materially affected outcome of the election.

5. The stand of the petitioner, in response to the present application, is encapsulated, as follows:

5.1 The present petition has been filed in terms of Section 83 of the 1951 Act and the petitioner has duly informed the facts and grounds, on which the present petition has been filed.

5.2 The cause of action has been duly pleaded in the election petition, with respect to non-filing of all columns of nomination papers.

5.3 The basis for filing the present petition, as well as cause of action, has been properly disclosed. Therefore, none of the ingredients for rejection of petition are fulfilled. There is no merit in the application and the same deserves to be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record.

7. The present application has been filed by respondent no.1 seeking dismissal of the present petition for failure to disclose a cause of action.

8. It is to be noted that the petitioner has challenged the election of respondent no.1, mainly on two grounds. Firstly, the respondent did not disc