Through this election petition, the petitioner, who has contested as one of the candidates in No.101, Poonjar Legislative Assembly Constituency, challenges the election of the returned candidate, who is the first respondent herein. The first respondent secured a total of 63,621 votes and is far ahead of the next candidate who secured only 35,800 votes. The petitioner, who is 3rd in the list, has secured 22,270 votes only. The petitioner challenges the election of the returned candidate on the grounds under Section 100(1) (d)(i) and Section 100(1)(b) read with Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

2. According to the petitioner, the first respondent had deliberately suppressed vital information which ought to have been disclosed in the affidavit filed along with the nomination paper, thereby the acceptance of his nomination was improper. It has been pleaded that the first respondent had suppressed the existence of building No.147(A) in Ward No.14 of Erattupetta Municipality in the name of his wife Smt. Usha George, and an office having a plinth area of 600 sq.ft. in block No.47 of the Erattupetta Village. It has also been pleaded that the first respondent has suppressed his share amounting to 15,000/- at the Meenachil East Urban Co-operative Bank, the balance amount of 114/- in the name of Smt. Usha George in the SBI account at the Meenachil East Urban Co-operative Bank, Kalathukadav Branch, a recurring deposit having the monthly instalment of 100/- in the name of Smt.Usha George at the Meenachil East Urban Co-operative Bank M&E Branch, Erattupetta, his share of 20,000/- at the Poonjar Service Co-operative Bank and also the share of 20,000/- in favour of his wife at the Poojar Service Co-operative Bank. According to the petitioner, therefore, the acceptance of the nomination of the first respondent was nothing but improper acceptance within the meaning of Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

3. The further case of the petitioner is that with a view to inducing the votes of a particular community and also by way of illegal gratification, the first respondent has morphed his photograph in a book-let relating to Aruvithura Thirunal in order to make it appear that he had also participated in the procession along with the priests and all. According to the petitioner, the said act of the first respondent is a corrupt practice which comes under Section 100(1)(b) read with Section 123 of the Act.

4. The first respondent seriously challenges the maintainability of the election petition. It has been contended that there are no proper pleadings with regard to any of the grounds enumerated under Section 100(1)(d)(i) or Section 100(1)(b) read with Section 123 of the Act. According to the first respondent, no facts constituting the grounds have been pleaded and even the law has not been properly pleaded. It has also been contended that the corrupt practices allegedly committed have not been set forth in the election petition and therefore, there is absolutely nothing to take the matter to the stage evidence.

5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri.K.Ramkumar for the first respondent and the learned counsel Sri.G. Bhagavat Singh for the election petitioner.

6. The learned Senior Counsel has argued that in order to maintain the ground under Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Act, the petitioner has to specifically plead and prove both the limbs of the provision. The petitioner has to specifically plead that the acceptance of nomination of the first respondent is nothing but improper acceptance. Over and above it, the petitioner has to specifically plead that through the said improper acceptance, the result of the election in so far as it concerns the returned candidate, has been materially affected. It has also been argued that in what manner the same has been materially affected has also to be pleaded. Regarding the other ground of corrupt practice, the learned Senior Counsel has argued tha