Failure to furnish necessary documents integral to an election petition, as required by the Representation of the People Act, 1950, may lead to the dismissal of the petition.

1. Petitioner who contested in the Kerala State Legislative Assembly elections in the Vadakkekara Legislative Assembly Continuency challenges the election of the 4th respondent who has been declared elected by the Returning Officer. Respondents 2,3 and 5 to 8 are the candidates who contested the election unsuccessfully. First respondent is the Returning Officer.

2. The election was held on 23-3-1987. Petitioner was the candidate of the Indian National Congress (I) party. 4th respondent was the candidate of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). 6th respondent belonged to the Bharathiya Janata Party. Others contested as independents. The allegation in the petition is that most of the counting staff belonging to the N.G.O. Union affiliated to the CPI(M) intentionally manipulated the counting so as to inflate the number of votes in favour of the 4th respondent and to the detriment of the petitioner, that when the ballot boxes were taken up for counting the seal of the ballot box of Booth No. 16 was found to be tampered with, that the petitioner's Chief Election Agent raised objection and requested to prepare a mahazar regarding the tampered condition of the ballot box, and that the first respondent refused to heed to the request. Another contention is that the 4th respondent, his agents and his partisans with his knowledge and in violation of S.19 of the Representation of People Act 1950 and Art.326 of the Constitution of India managed to include in the Electoral Roll more than 1000 persons as electors who have not completed 21 years of age. Petitioner seeks re-counting of all the ballot

papers of the constituency and re-determine the number of votes secured by each candidate, to re-scrutinise the disputed ballot papers and determine properly the votes secured by each candidate out of the said disputed ballot papers, to exclude the votes cast by voters who have not really completed 21 years of age on the qualifying date viz. 1-1-1987 and to declare the election of the 4th respondent void and to declare the petitioner as duly elected from the Vadakkekara Constituency.

3. Except the 4th respondent others are set exparte. 4th respondent filed preliminary objection denying the averments in the petition that he, his agents and his partisans managed to include in the Electoral Rolls more than 1000 persons as electors who have not completed 21 years of age. He challenges the very maintainability of the election petition on the ground that the petitioner failed to furnish the certificates referred to in the election petition. 4th respondent contends that the failure to furnish copy of the list mentioned in the election petition makes the averments incomplete and the failure to do so amounts to non-compliance of S.81(3) of the Act.

4. S.83 provides that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies and shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice alleged, including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice. The petition shall be signed by the petitioner and verified by him in the manner laid down in the CPC for the verification of pleadings. S.83(2) states that any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition. S.86 provides for the trial of the election petition. S.86(1) envisages that the High Court shall dismiss any election petition which does not comply with the provisions of S.81 or S.82 or S.117, S.81(3) provides that every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner, under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition.

5. Contention of the 4th respondent is that the election petition is liable to be dismissed under S.86(1) o