An election petition must contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies, and all material facts therefore are required to be set out in the election petition failing which the election petition would be dismissed as not furnishing cause of action for its laying.

1. - This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 21-9-2011 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar (herein after 'the Trial Court') in Election Petition No. 1/2010. The trial court has dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, filed by the returned candidate, the petitioner herein, seeking rejection of the election petition filed by the respondent No. 2 (herein after "the election petitioner") under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (herein after 1994 Act') and the Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchyati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (herein after 1994 Rules') for having failed to disclose a cause of action.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner (herein after the "returned candidate") contested election to the office of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Thimoli against the election petitioner and was declared elected on 31-1-2010 having secured the highest number of votes at election for the office of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Thimoli i.e. 968, as against the election petitioner who secured 957 votes. Aggrieved of the aforesaid election result the election petitioner filed an election petition under Section 43 of the 1994 Act read with Rule 80 of the 1994 Rules.

3. In para No. 4, 5 and 6 of the election petition it was stated that out of the 2899 polled votes cast for the office of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Thimoli the returned candidate purportedly having received 968 votes in his favour as against 957 votes in favour of the election petitioner was wrongly declared elected by a difference of 11 (eleven) votes. It was submitted that 13 (thirteen) votes cast in favour of the election petitioner were wrongly rejected and further that owing to a disruption in the electric supply at the counting of votes, 15 (fifteen) votes, purportedly cast in favour of the election petitioner, were wrongly accepted as having been casted in favour of the returned candidate. It was alleged that the Returning Officer complicit with the returned candidate fudged the counting of votes consequent whereto the returned candidate was wrongly declared having been elected to the office of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Thimoli. It was also stated that 42 votes cast at the election on 31-1-2010 for the office of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Thimoli were also wrongly declared invalid and further that in fact only 2897 votes were accounted for at the counting even while 2899 votes were casted without any explanation of the unaccounted for 2 votes. In para 6 of the election petition it was stated that the returning officer colluded with the returned candidate for the reason that he was under the influence of the Zonal Magistrate Hemendra Singh Rathore, who was stated to be related to the successful candidate. The further allegation in the election petition was that owing to nexus of the returned candidate with powers that be, the application of the election petitioner for re-counting of votes was not entertained by the Returning Officer resulting in an unfair outcome of election in issue. It was also stated that in the event there was a recounting of votes as prayed for by the election petitioner the irregularities in the counting of votes would be evident and the election petitioner be declared the winning candidate for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Thimoli.

4. On notice being served on the returned candidate, now the petitioner before this court, he filed reply to the election petition controverting the allegations made by the election petitioner. It was stated that the allegations were baseless; the election petition did not contain a concise statements of material facts with definitive allegations to make out a ground under Rule 80 (d) (iii) of the 1994 Rules but was based on surmises and conjectures and failed to disclose any cause of action consequent to which it was liable to be dismissed. The Returning Officer and Election O