Election petitions deficient in material facts, containing false averments, or failing to demonstrate material effect on election result or corrupt practice with required affidavit are summarily dismissible without trial.

JUDGMENT :

GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent on the interlocutory application for rejection of the election petition.

2. Instant interlocutory application is filed under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 86(1) of Representation of People Act, 1951 for rejection of plaint in this election petition.

3. The present election petition is filed under Sections 80 and 81 read with Section 100 (1) (a) (b) (d) (i) (iv) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (herein after referred to as Act, 1951) challenging the validity of the election of the respondent-Chandradeo Mahato, returned candidate from 38, Sindri Assembly Constituency to the Jharkhand State Legislative Assembly in the election held in October/November, 2024. Respondent was elected with a total 1,05,136 votes, whereas total number of votes cast in favour of the runner was 1,01,688, who was the official candidate of BJP. Election Petitioner was the official candidate of All India Forward Bloc in whose favour 737 votes were cast in the election.

4. Challenge to the validity of the election, is mainly on the following grounds:-

a. Deposit of security money of Rs.10,000/- was not made in accordance with the Section 34 (2) of Act, 1951 as it was not made with the Returning Officer concerned, nor in the Government treasury, but with the Nazir, who cannot be said to be functionary notified under the Act, 1951.

b. Respondent submitted his nomination papers in four sets along with the required affidavit. In the affidavit sworn in the office of Shri Ram Prasad Mahato, Notary Public, Dhanbad, the required prescribed stamps were not affixed on the affidavit. The Advocate Welfare Fund Ticket of Rs.30 as well as Advocate Clerk Stamp of Rs.5 were not affixed. Out of the four sets of affidavits filed along with the nomination papers, only two were in original, whereas other two were xerox copy of the original affidavit.

c. Voters had been misled during the election campaign as the respondent had claimed himself to be the candidate of (CPI ML), whereas he had filed the nomination paper as official candidate of Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation). Objection is to the omission of word ‘liberation’ in the election pamphlets.

d. It is also averred in the election petition that declaration with regard to conviction in pending criminal cases was not as per the Act, 1951. As per the instruction and guidelines, all the candidates have to declare about their conviction and pending criminal cases in the nomination paper and also the details thereof was to be published in two leading newspapers. This was not complied with, and the publication with regard to it, made in the daily newspaper, Hindustan (Hindi) was misleading.

5. The grounds of rejection of plaint taken on behalf of the respondent can be summed up as under:

a. Averments made in the election petition, do not disclose a cause of action for declaring the election to be invalid.

b. There is failure on the part of the election petitioner to comply with mandatory requirement of Sections 81 , 82 and 83 of the Act, 1951. It is contended that there is non-compliance to Section 81 (3) of the Act, 1951 as the true copy of the election petition was not served upon the respondent. The copy which has been given as a xerox copy, is not duly attested as provided under Section 86 of the Act, 1951. Non-compliance of Se