An election petition must contain specific prayers and material facts; defective electoral rolls alone cannot invalidate an election, and the absence of full particulars does not preclude trial if material facts are present.

JUDGMENT :

KARDAK ETE, J.

Heard Mr. P. K. Tiwari, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. T. Lamgu, learned counsel for the applicant/respondent. And also heard Mr. Rituraj Biswas and Mr. D.J. Kapil, learned counsel for the opposite party/election petitioner.

2. This is an application under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking striking out pleadings in the connected Election Petition No. 7(AP)/2024, on the ground that the same are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous and vexatious.

3. The opposite party/election petitioner has filed the Election Petition No. 7(AP)/2024, for declaration of the election of the applicant/respondent from 19 Nyapin (ST) Assembly Constituency to be void under Section 98(b) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the RP Act, 1951 in short) on the ground of commission of corrupt practice by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of the returned candidate or his election agent as provided under Section 100 (1)(b) of the RP Act, 1951 and also for a declaration of the election of the applicant/respondent under Section 98(c) of the RP Act, 1951 and under Section 101 (b) of the said Act for having received majority of valid votes, i.e. but for the votes obtained by the returned candidate by corrupt practice, the petitioner would have obtained a majority of the valid votes.

4. It is the contention of the applicant/respondent that it is evident from the nature of reliefs sought for in the election petition that the election petitioner does not seek to declare the election of the returned candidate void on the ground provided under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the RP Act, 1951, i.e. result of the election of the returned candidate was materially affected by the improper reception of void votes. On the contrary, pleaded case projected by the petitioner is covered by Section 101(b) of the RP Act, 1951, i.e. but for the votes obtained by the returned candidate/respondent by corrupt practice of booth capturing, the petitioner would have obtained the majority of the valid votes.

5. The applicant/respondent contends that in the pleadings dealing with the defective electoral rolls, the petitioner has projected the case of inclusion of dead voters, non-existent or bogus voters in the electoral rolls of 16-Pagba, 29- Kambang, 30-Peel and 24-Rowa Polling Stations in the 19 Nyapin (ST) Assembly Constituency, thereby clearly and unambiguously projecting the case of defective electoral rolls in the aforementioned Polling Stations. There is no prayer in the election petition under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the RP Act, 1951 that the election of the returned candidate be declared void on the ground of being materially affected by improper reception of void votes. It is contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the defective Electoral Roll cannot be a ground for setting aside an election of a returned candidate under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) and (iv) of the RP Act, 1951. Therefore, unless it is shown with material facts and particulars that the votes of dead persons were cast in favor of returned candidate or there was impersonation or double voting favoring the returned candidate thereby resulting in improper reception of void votes materially affecting the outcome of election, merely because the names of dead or non-existent voters entered into electoral roll cannot be a ground for setting aside the election of returned candidate. Moreover, in such a case, apart from incorporating relevant material facts with particulars clearly showing as to how the returned candidate was benefited by double voting or impersonation, it is mandatory to make a specific prayer for declaring the election of returned candidate void on the ground of Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the RP Act, 1951. In the present case election petitioner not only miserably failed to incorporate the material particulars showing improper reception of void votes in favor of