1. The election of respondent No. 1, the returned candidate from Hamirpur Parliamentary constituency is under challenge in this Election Petition. Nominations for filing papers to the Lok Sabha from 4-Hamirpur Parliamentary constituency com-menced on 20th April, 1991. Last date for the same was 26th April, 1991 and the dates for scrutiny and withdrawal were 27th and 29th April, 1991, respectively. The polling was held on 20th May, 1991. Counting of votes could not commence on 26th May, 1991, due to the assassination of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi and was deferred to 16th June, 1991. The counting commenced on 16th June, 1991 at Hamirpur, Una, Bilaspur and Dehra simultanseously. The result was declared on 17th June, 1991. Respondent No. 1 secured 2,05,970 votes as against the petitioner, who secured 2,02,232 votes. Respondent No. 1 was declared duly elected having won the election with a margin of 3738 votes. Respondents No. 2 to 16 were the other candidates who contested the election.

2. The election is sought to be set aside on various grounds, namely : (a) improper acceptance of nomination of respondent No. 7; (b) corrupt practices having been committed by the returned candidate, his election agent and by other persons, with the consent of returned candidate and his election agent; (c) the improper reception and rejection of votes; and (d) violation of rules made under the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called as the Act).

3. The corrupt practices alleged are: (a) bribery; (b) undue influence; (c) appeal on the ground of religion and caste; (d) promotion of feelings of hatred between different classes of citizens on the ground of religion and caste; (e) hiring and procuring of vehicles for conveyance of voters and obtaining, procuring and attempting to procure the assistance from persons in Government service.

4. Besides seeking to set aside the election of respondent No. 1, the petitioner has sought a further declaration that but for the votes obtained by the returned candidate by cor-rupt practices and the wrongful acceptance and rejection of votes, the petitioner would have secured the majority of votes and as such he be declared duly elected.

5. The petition is being contested by the returned candidate, who filed his reply and took a number of preliminary legal objections viz : (a) the Election Petition as well as the affidavit have not been verified in accordance with law; (b) petition lacks material facts and particulars and discloses no cause of action; (c) non-production of tape-recorded cassette and non-supply of its copy to the respondents; (d) non-attestation of the copy of Election Petition supplied to the respondents in accordance with law; and (e) the petition having vague and imaginary allegations. On the basis of the preliminary objections, it is pleaded that the Election Petition is liable to be dismissed. Respondents 2 to 16 have not filed any reply. Respondents 2, 3 and 6 to 16 were proceeded against ex parte and respondents 4 and 5 are represented by their respective counsel.

6. On 10th April, 1992, the following preliminary issues were framed :

1. Whether the petition as well as the affidavit in support thereof have not been verified in accordance with law. If so, its effect ? OPR 1

2. Whether the averments made in para 12 of the petition are liable to be struck down for the reasons mentioned in preliminary objec-tion No. 2 ? OPR 1

3. Whether the petition does not disclose any cause of action and is liable to be dismissed for the non-compliance of the provisions of Ss. 83 and 86 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 ? OPR 1

4. What is the effect of the non-production of tape-recorded cassette recording the alleged speech of Sadhvi Ritambra and the non-supply of its copy to respondent No. 1 (wrongly mentioned as petitioner in the order dated 10th April, 1992) at this stage of the proceedings ? OPR 1

5. Whether the copy of the petition sup-plied to respondent No. 1 has not been attested in accorda