Iqbal Ahmed Ansari, J.

1. The opposite party No. 1 herein has filed an Election Petition under Section 80, read with Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (in short, the 'RP Act, 1951'), calling in question the election of the present applicant (who stands impleaded, in the Election Petition, as respondent No. 1) to the Legislative Assembly of Arunachal Pradesh from 16th Yachuli (ST) Constituency, his case being, in brief, thus: In the election, in question, while the election petitioner got, in all, 5596 votes, the respondent No. 1 (i.e., the returned candidate) received as many as 5638 votes. The respondent No. 1 was accordingly declared elected by a margin of 42 votes. In the election, in question, as many as 376 votes were cast by means of 'postal ballot's and, out of the total votes, so cast, while 197 votes were found to have been cast in favour of respondent No. 1 (i.e., the returned candidate), the election petitioner (i.e., opposite party No. 1 in the present application) got 125 votes and the remaining candidate, namely, opposite party No. 2, received 34 votes. However, none of the said 376 persons, who had cast their votes through 'postal ballot', falls in any of the categories of voters, who are eligible to cast their votes through 'postal ballot', and, hence, the votes of all these 376 voters were invalid and ought not to have been counted in the election.

2. Thus, all the said 376 votes, cast through "postal ballot", are, according to the election petitioner, liable to be deducted, and, on doing so, the election petitioner having received 30 votes more than the present applicant, who is the returned candidate, the election petitioner becomes entitled to be declared, and be accordingly declared, by this Court, elected from the 16th Yachuli (ST) Legislative Constituency.

3. The above election petition has given rise to Election Petition No. 5/2009 and it is in this Election Petition that the present application has been made by the returned candidate, who stands impleaded, as already indicated above, as respondent No. 1 in the Election Petition.

4. I have heard Mr. B.C. Das, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicant, who is respondent No. 1 in Election Petition No. 5/2009, and Mr. S.S. Dey, learned counsel, for the opposite party No. 1, who is petitioner in the Election Petition No. 5/2009.

5. By making this application under Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, 'the Code'), respondent No. 1, namely, the returned candidate, has prayed for striking out the pleadings, in the Election Petition, by taking resort to Order VI Rule 16 of the Code and also for rejecting the Election Petition itself in exercise of this Court's power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code on the ground that the Election Petition does not disclose any cause of action.

6. With the help of the present application, made under Order VI Rule 16, and Order VII Rule 11, the applicant (i.e., the returned candidate), who stands impleaded in the Election Petition as the respondent No. 1, contends that the Election Petition lacks concise statement of material facts, as were required and ought to have been mentioned, in the Election Petition, in terms of the provisions of Section 83 of the Representation Of People's Act, 1951 (in short, 'the RP Act, 1951') and that the pleadings, made in the Election Petition, are vexatious, unnecessary, baseless, vague and are an abuse of the process of the Court. The averments, therefore, made in the Election Petition, which fall within the ambit of Order VI Rule 16, need to be struck out and, in consequence thereof, as the Election Petition would have no cause of action to disclose, the Election Petition deserves dismissal.

7. Before I deal with the pleadings in the Election Petition, which the returned candidate seeks to get struck out, it is imperative, at the very outset, to take note of those aspects of law, which have material bearing