IMPORTANT POINT
Election petitions must contain concise statements of material facts; omission of a single material fact leads to dismissal for lack of cause of action.

JUDGMENT :

NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.

1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. N.D. Nanavaty with learned Advocate Mr. Mitul Shelat and learned Advocate Ms. Disha Nanavaty on behalf of the applicant- original respondent no.1 and party-in-person-Mr. Rahul Vasudevbhai Vyas for himself as the respondent no.1- original petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. Sahil M. Shah with learned Advocate Mr. Taukib M. Mandli for respondents no.2 and 3 - original respondents no.2 and 3. [The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the Election Petition].

2. By way of this application under Order VII Rule 11 (c) (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Sections 81, 82, 83 and 84 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The RP Act, 1951” for short ) the respondent no.1 has prayed that this Court may reject election petition preferred by the original petitioner -party-in-person.

2.1 Briefly stated, the original petitioner and respondent no. 1 had contested elections to the Lok Sabha in the Vadodara- 20 constituency, which was held on 07.05.2024. The applicant-original respondent no. 1 had secured the highest number of votes and had been declared as elected, whereas the original petitioner, who had contested the election as an independent candidate, had lost the election. The original petitioner had thereafter preferred Election Petition No. 3 of 2024, inter alia seeking to declare election of the original respondent no. 1 as void and whereas certain other prayers had also been sought for. This Court having issued summons to the respondents, the original respondent no. 1, had filed his written statement as well as Election Application No. 12 of 2024 i.e. the present election application. On the other hand respondents no. 2 and 3 i.e. The Returning Officer and the Election Commission of India had preferred Election Application No. 14 of 2024, seeking for a declaration that the Returning Officer and Chief Electoral Officer are not necessary parties and could not be joined in the election petition and that they may be deleted from the array of party respondents.

3. Since the application preferred by the original respondent no.1, was the first in priority and considering that he was seeking for a prayer to reject the election petition itself, the said application had been heard by this Court.

4. Leaned Senior Advocate Mr. Nanavaty appearing for original respondent no. 1 would at the outset take this Court extensively through the provisions of the RP Act, 1951 more particularly to the relevant provisions which have a bearing on the issue in question.

5. Learned Senior Advocate would take this Court through Section 100 of the RP Act, 1951 and would submit that Section 100 inter alia states the grounds for declaring an election to be void by the High Court, more particularly learned Senior Advocate would lay emphasis on Section 100(1)(d) and submit that the requirement for declaring the election of a returned candidate to be void would be on the ground of the result of the election concerning the returned candidate has been materially effected by the aspects found in Section 100(1)(d)(i) to (iv). It is submitted that sub-sections d(i) to (iv) state about improper acceptance of nomination, a corrupt practice had been committed or an improper rejection, refusal of rejection of any vote or there has been non compliance with provisions of the Constitution or of the said Act or Rules or Orders made thereunder. It is submitted by learned Senior Advocate that what has to be appreciated is whether the election has been materially effected or not on account of the aspects mentioned. It is submitted by learned Senior Advocate that the entire Election Petition is bereft of any averments that the election had been materially effected on account of the petitioner indulging in any of the acts as mentioned in Section 100(d)(i) to (iv) or even otherwise on the other issues.

5.1 Learned Senior Advocate would thereafter rely up