The failure to plead sufficient material facts in an election petition can be fatal, but prima facie material facts allowing for further proceedings may still exist.

ORDER :

(MITALI THAKURIA, J.)

Heard Mr. D. Mazumder, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. K. Deori & Mr. K. Dabi, learned counsel for the applicant/returned candidate. Also heard Mr. N. Pada, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/Election Petitioner.

2. The present interlocutory application has been filed seeking dismissal of the Election Petition No. 4/2024 under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for non-disclosure of cause of action and material facts, and also under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for striking out portions of the pleadings that are alleged to be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious.

3. The applicant is the returned candidate and arrayed as respondent No. 1 in Election Petition No. 4/2024, which has been filed by the election petitioner challenging the election result of the 36-Nari Koyu (ST) Assembly Constituency of the Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly. Respondent No. 2 is the Returning Officer and has been arrayed as a pro forma respondent.

4. It is the case of the applicant that the election petition lacks the requisite material facts and particulars regarding the alleged corrupt practices, such as booth capturing and undue influence. The allegations are vague and general in nature and do not disclose any cause of action as required under Section 83 (1) (a) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (in short, RP Act, 1951’).

5. It is submitted by Mr. Mazumder, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant/returned candidate, that in paragraph No. 12(I) of the election petition, the respondent/election petitioner has alleged that one of his proposers, Shri Ninya Angu, was attacked by supporters of the returned candidate on 27.03.2024 at 1.30 PM to prevent filing of the nomination. However, the election petitioner had already filed his nomination at 12.42 PM on 27.03.2024, as per the documents annexed by the petitioner himself, rendering the alleged incident at 1.30 PM factually baseless, improbable and frivolous.

6. Further Mr. Mazumder submitted that though in paragraph No. 12(II), it is alleged that the supporters of the returned candidate gave threatening to the election petitioner, but the said allegation lack specific details such as date and time, names, and places of the alleged incidents, and thus, the said allegation is also vague and devoid of material particulars.

7. Mr. Mazumder also submitted that in paragraph No. 12(III), the petitioner alleged that his proposer- Shri Ninya Angu and a supporter- Shri Katon Moyong were restrained from entering the Office of the Returning Officer’s on the day of scrutiny by the supporters of the Returned Candidate, namely Shri Illi Koyu, Shri Minge Kadu, Shri Dakge Riba and Shri Chie Kadu & Ors., but those individuals were not authorized by the election petitioner to enter the Returning Officer’s Office at the time of scrutiny under Section 36 of the RP Act, 1951, and hence, the claim of interference with the election process is unsustainable and devoid of material facts.

8. Further, in paragraph No. 12(IV), the petitioner refers to an alleged attack on their convoy on 30.03.2024. But from a bare perusal of the FIR dated 31.03.2024, lodged in this regard, it is seen that the alleged incident is not related to any election offence, rather