This application has been -filed by the applicant/respondent Sri Kameng Dolo under Order 6 read with Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for dismissal of the election petition on the ground of failure to cull out proper cause of action. The, election petition has been filed by the opposite party/election petitioner for declaring the ejection, of the respondent from 12 Pakke-Kessang (ST) Legislative Assembly Constituency in the State of Arunachal Pradesh as void under Section 98(b) read with Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (Act).

2. The case as projected in the election petition is that a general notification was issued on 15.3.2014 notifying holding of general election for constituting a new legislative assembly of the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Schedule declared was as follows:--

3. Election petitioner was nominated by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) as its candidate for 12 Pakke-Kessang(ST) Legislative Assembly Constituency. Respondent (applicant herein) was nominated by the Indian National Congress(INC) party as its candidate for the said constituency. No other candidate filed nomination paper for the said constituency except the election petitioner and the respondent.

4. On 24.3.2014, nomination papers of both the candidates i.e., the election petitioner and the respondent were taken up for scrutiny by the Returning Officer. On scrutiny, the nomination papers of both the candidates were found to be in order. At the time of scrutiny, the election petitioner along with his wife, his proposer and his election agent were present at Seppa. In the morning of 25.4.2014, they dispersed to various places. Election petitioner came to Itanagar. In the evening of 26.3.2014, election petitioner learnt at Itanagar about his withdrawal of candidature when he received telephone calls to this effect from many of his supporters and relatives. According to the election petitioner, neither he nor his proposer, election agent and wife were present at Seppa on 26.3.2014. Therefore, question of withdrawal of candidature did not arise.

5. Though the election petitioner took up the issue before the police as well as before the Election Commission authorities alleging foul play in the withdrawal of his nomination, the Returning Officer of 12 Pakke-Kessang (ST) Legislative Assembly Constituency on 26.3.2014 declared the respondent as having been elected unopposed from the said constituency. Form 21 under Rule 11(1) of the Code of Election Rules, 1961 was accordingly issued.

6. After the election process was over, the election petitioner filed the related election petition contending that there was violation of Section 37 of the Act. Election petitioner did not write any notice for withdrawal of his candidature. He also did not authorize his election agent as well as his proposer for withdrawal of his candidature. It was a clear case of foul play. Therefore; acceptance of alleged withdrawal is in violation of Section 37 of the Act. Election petitioner has thus contended that the said action has materially affected the result of election in the said constituency in as much as it has led to unopposed election of the respondent from the said constituency. As such, election petitioner has sought for a declaration that election of the respondent is void under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act.

7. Respondent has filed the instant application raising preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the election petition. It is stated that the issue raised in the election petition is between the election petitioner and the Returning Officer. Election petitioner has not made any specific allegation against the respondent or his election agent of indulging in any corrupt practice. No material cause of action has been spelt out in the election petition against the respondent. Since there is no pleading alleging corrupt practice by the respondent or by his agent, no material cause of