The allegations made in an election petition must disclose a cause of action and set forth full particulars of the corrupt practices as required by Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for striking out pleading contained in paras 4 to 23, 29, 30, 32, 34, 42, 43, 44 and 45 of the election petition on the ground that allegations in those paras do not disclose cause of action and pleading contained in paras 39,40, 41 and 47 have not been verified.

2. It is settled that on a combined reading of Ss. 81, 83, 86 and 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act 43 of 1951), for short the "Act", those paragraphs of the election petition which do not disclose any cause of action are liable to be struck out under O.6, R. 15, CPC as the Court is empowered at any stage of the proceedings to strike out or delete pleading which is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or which may tend to prejudice, embarras or delay the fair trial of the petition, or which otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court. However, a pleading has to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and read it out of the context, in isolation. In other word, it is not right to pick up one or two words out of the context and to draw inferences therefrom.

3. The Act is a complete and self-contained Code. Under the Act an election can be questioned only on the grounds as contained in S.100. Section 83 provides that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts and shall set forth full particulars or corrupt practice. The pleadings are regulated by S.83, and it makes it obligatory on the election petitioner to give the requisite facts, details and the particulars of each corrupt practice with a full statement with exactness as possible. The provisions under Section 83 are mandatory. Therefore, if material facts constituting the cause of action, or corrupt practice, are not averred, then no ground is made out for challenging the election, and if the election petition fails to make a ground provided u/s. 100, it must fail.

4. "Particulars" are "details of the case set up by the party". "Material particulars." within the contemplation of Cl.(b) of S.83(I) would therefore mean all the details which are necessary to amplify, refine and embellish the material facts already pleaded in the petition to make it full, more detailed and more informative. See Udhav Singh v. M.R.Scindia, AIR 1976 SC 744.

5. Keeping the above principle in view, let me now examine the case on hand. The election petition runs into 56 paras. The averments made in paras 1 to 3A are the narration of facts regarding notification calling upon "104-Nazira Assembly Constituency" in the State of Assam to elect a member (by election), making of nomination, scrutiny and allotment of symbols. The above paras further show that the petitioner was set up by Indian National Congress (I), Respondent 1, the returned candidate, was set up by Assam Gana Parishad.

6. The allegations made in para 4 relates to the alleged illegality or irregularity committed in course of counting and alleged illegality in taking fresh poll on 10-1-88, at four (4) Polling Stations mentioned in the petition. This matter shall be discussed along with other paragraphs later in this judgment.

7. In para 5, the petitioner has stated that the returned candidate Tonu Konwar committed corrupt practice of undue influence as contemplated u/s. 123(2) of the Act. A perusal of para 5 of the petition indicates that no particulars of the corrupt practice have been set out as provided u/s. 83. Section 83 lays down a mandatory provision that the petitioner shall set forth full particulars of corrupt practice, as already stated.

8. The allegation contained in para 6 relates to a notice dt. 15-12-87 issued by the Assam State Transport Corporation to the effect that bus services to and from Nazira would be inaugurated by the Minister in charge of Transport. It has been further stated that the notice was illegal and was to induce the voters to vote in favour of the returned candidate, the c