The High Court cannot allow the amendment of pleadings to introduce new material facts and particulars of corrupt practice not previously alleged in an election petition, as it would be contrary to the provisions of Section 86 (5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

R. K. DASH, J.

( 1 ) THIS order disposes of two petitions - one filed by the petitioner for amendment of his pleadings, which is registered as Misc. Case No. 4 of 1996 and the second by the respondent to strike off certain paragraphs of the petitioner's pleadings as irrelevant, which is registered as Misc. Case No. 15 of 1996. Earlier to the filing of Misc. Case No. 15 of 1996, the respondent had filed a similar petition which was registered as Misc. Case No. 94 of 1995, but since the said petition was not signed and verified by the respondent himself, he filed another petition. For the sake of convenience I shall first take up petitioner's case regarding amendment of his pleadings.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has challenged the respondent's election to the Orissa Legislative Assembly on the ground of corrupt practice under Section 100 (1) (b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, 'the Act' ). By filing the present petition for amendment he seeks to amplify the particulars of corrupt practice, material facts of which have been set out in paragraphs 18, 19 and 21 (A) to 21 (S) of the election petition. Since such prayer has been seriously challenged by the respondent, for better appreciation of the contentions raised, it is necessary to refer the same in seriatim.

( 3 ) IT is stated that name of one Bhikari Pattanaik appearing in paragraph 19 of the petition is an inadvertent mistake and so his name be deleted by substituting the name of one 'gajendra Naik'.

( 4 ) IN paragraph 21 (D) of the petition, it is alleged that the respondent in order to enhance the prospect of his election instructed the Government to instal tube-wells throughout Begunia constituency in war footing and accordingly 590 tube-wells were rapidly installed in various places. By the proposed amendment the petitioner has sought to introduce two incidents regarding alleged involvement of the respondent as well as his election agent. So far as respondent is concerned, it is stated that on 9-5-95 at about 9 a. m. he visited village Simor along with the Executive Engineer, P. H. D. and in presence of the villagers directed the Executive Engineer to instal a tube-well at once so that the voters would vote in his favour and in fact tube-wells were installed much before the date of polling. As regards the second incident, it is stated that on 21-5-95 at about 3 p. m. respondent's election agent Shri Lalatendu Bidyadhar Mohapatra visited village Haja along with the Executive Engineer, P. H. D. and directed him to instal tube-wells within two days.

( 5 ) THE next amendment is in respect of paragraph 21 (E) of the main petition. Originally the petitioner pleaded that the respondent in order to influence the voters to cast vote in his favour utilised the services of Pratap Chandra Patnaik, P. W. D. Executive Engineer on 3-5-95 onwards and directed him to construct road and small culverts and do similar works out of Government funds. In the proposed amendment he has sought to bring two other new facts, one concerning the respondent and the other relating to respondent's election agent Lalatendu Bidyadhar Mohapatra. So far as the respondent is concerned, petitioner's case is that on 7-5-95 he along with his election agent Lalatendu Bidyadhar Mohapatra and Sri Pratap Chandra Patnaik, Executive Engineer, P. W. D. , visited Begunia constituency and directed the Executive Engineer Sri Pratap Chandra Patnaik in presence of villagers to start metalling of Atri-Baghamari Road, and Govindpur-Kantabada College Road and complete the work before the date of polling. As to the second incident, it is alleged that on 15-5-95 the election agent of the respondent Lalatendu Bidyadhar Mohapatra along with the Executive Engineer Pratap Chandra Patnaik visited village Ganapur and in presence of the villagers directed Shri Patnaik to construct new culvert on Sanapur-Ostapur Road.

( 6 ) THE fourth amendment sought for relates to paragraph 21 (F) of the petition. The grievance