The election petition contains a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies, which is sufficient to get along with the trial. The verification of the election petition and the verification affidavit filed by the election petitioner satisfy the requirement under Section 83(1)(c) of the Act.

K. VENKATARAMAN, J

1. The present applications are taken out by the first respondent in the election petition in E.L.P.No.7 of 2011 to reject the election petition and to strike off paragraphs 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 25 of the election petition for want of material facts, material particulars as scurrilous and vexatious, meant to prejudice the Court and as an abuse of the process of the Court.

2. For the sake of convenience, the applicant in both the applications is referred as “ Returned Candidate”, the first respondent is referred as “election petitioner” and the other respondents are referred in their respective position.

3. The election petitioner filed the election petition to declare the election of the Returned Candidate in respect of No.199, Periyakulam (SC Assembly Constituency) held on 13.4.2011 for which results were declared on 13.5.2011, as null and void and declare the election petitioner as duly elected for the said Constituency. In the present applications, the Returned Candidate seeks to reject the election petition and to strike out the pleadings in paragraphs 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 25 of the election petition.

4. The reasons set out in the affidavits in support of the applications for rejecting the election petition as well as to strike out the said paragraphs are as follows:-

(a) The election petition deserves to be rejected at the preliminary stage itself as not maintainable on the ground that -

(i) the election petition does not contain valid verification of the pleadings as per Section 83 (1) (c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951;

(ii) the election petition does not contain material facts and full particulars constituting complete or full cause of action as required under Section 83 of the Act.

(b) The entire election petition proceeds on a presumption that the Returned Candidate belongs to Christian faith relying on certain errors in his school certificate. Nothing has been pleaded to show that the Returned Candidate professed Christian Religion on the date of nomination or election. The filing of the election petition is solely due to political rivalry and smacks of undue harassment.

(c) His parents and grandparents and their ancestors belonged to the schedule caste community of 'Samban' in Hindu religion. They had never converted to or professed any other religion, more particularly Christianity. All his family members are Hindus and belong to scheduled caste community called 'Samban'. Since his father was woking in a tea plantation company under a British employer, he gave Christian names to his first few children out of his loyalty and gratitute towards a Christian Superior even though he himself belonged to Hindu scheduled caste community.

(d) When his father was alive, he had signed the transfer certificate of his younger brother Udhayasuriyan, which contains the religion and caste as Hindu – Samban. His father was granted patta by the State Government in the year 1989 for a small house site in their village Govindanagaram along with other dalit families as part of a scheme meant for dalits belonging to scheduled castes. His parents were buried in the Mayanam meant for Hindu dalits in the village.

(e) Taking advantage of certain incorrect entries found in the certificates issued by the school, where the Returned Candidate and his brother studied, the election petitioner projected a false, frivolous and vextious theory as if his religion is Christian. When the Community Certificate dated 8.3.2010 issued by the competent authority is still in force and in the absence of any material facts and particulars regarding the alleged irregularities, manipulation, deceit or fraud in obtaining the community certificate, the election petitioner cannot require this Court to make a roving enquiry about the same on mere surmises and conjectures.

(f) The Returning Officer after verifying with the Tahsildar, Madurai North and having obtained a