SUMAN SHYAM, J.

Heard Mr. J. Keka, learned counsel for the applicant. I have also heard Mr. M. U. Mahmud, learned counsel representing the OP/election petitioner.

2. By filing the instant application under Order VI Rule 16 read with Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) the applicant/respondent No. 8 has prayed for striking off the pleadings contained in paragraphs 1 to 17, 19, 20 and 25 of the Election Petition and also for rejection of the petition on the ground that the Election Petition does not disclose any cause of action.

3. The opposite party/election petitioner herein had unsuccessfully contested the election held on 11.04.2016 in respect of 35, Abhayapuri South (SC) Legislative Assembly Constituency of Assam wherein the respondent No. 9, viz., Sri. Ananta Kumar Malo, was declared as the elected candidate. The Election Petition had been filed on the grounds that 35, Abhayapuri South Legislative Assembly Constituency is reserved for the Schedule Caste (SC) candidates and since the respondent No. 8 i.e. the present applicant does not belong to the Scheduled Caste (SC) community, his nomination had been illegally accepted by the Returning Officer. It is also the case of the election petitioner that the respondent No. 8 had indulged in corrupt practices as a result of which the election of the respondent No. 9 was liable to be set aside.

4. It would be pertinent to mention herein that originally there were as many as 9 (nine) respondents in the Election Petition. However, by the order dated 07.11.2016 this Court had directed striking off the names of respondent Nos. 1 to 7. The respondent No. 9, who is the returned candidate, has not entered appearance nor contested the Election Petition. The applicant/respondent No. 8 is the sole contesting respondent in the election petition.

5. Referring to the pleadings contained in the Election Petition Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the petition does not disclose any cause of action and hence, the Election Petition is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action.

6. By inviting the attention of this Court to the averments made in paragraphs 7, 10, 11, 17 and 18 of the Election Petition numbered and registered as Election Petition No. 2 of 2016, Mr. Deka submits that those statements are completely vague, frivolous, vexatious and unnecessary and if permitted to remain on record would amount to abuse of process of the Court. The learned counsel further submits that in this case there is no allegation of corrupt practice against the returned candidate or his agent and therefore, there is no cause of action within the meaning of section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 permitting institution of the election petition.

7. By referring to two earlier reported decisions of this Court in the case Chandan Kr Sarkar v. Chief Election Commissioner of India reported in 1995 (1) GLR 87 and in Dipak Kumar Ruhidas v. Chandan Kumar Sarkar reported in (2003) 1 GLR 106, Mr. Deka submits that the issue sought to be raised in the Election Petition has been conclusively decided by this Court in the aforesaid decisions whereby, it was effectively held that the Scheduled Caste certificate issued in favour of the applicant/respondent No. 8 was valid. In that view of the matter, submits Mr. Deka, the averments made in the Election Petition, even if taken on their face value, would not give rise to any triable issue.

8. Mr. Deka has further contended that there are no material facts brought on record by the election petitioner so as to disclose a complete cause of action and the election petition is nothing but a calculated attempt for causing harassment and injury to the respondent No. 8, who is an arch political rival of the election petitioner. Mr. Deka has, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the Election Petition at the threshold with exemplary cost.

9. Mr. Mahmud, learned counsel for the OP/election petitioner, on the other