An election petition must disclose material facts to establish a cause of action; vague allegations are insufficient for dismissal, and substantial compliance with procedural rules is mandated.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The present application has been filed by the sole Respondent of Election Petition No. 2 of 2024 invoking the provisions of Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 read with Order VI Rule 16, Order VII Rule 11 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this application, the Respondent has prayed for striking out the pleadings contained in Paragraphs 8(A) to 8(I) of the Election Petition and for dismissal of the Election Petition at the threshold. It is the contention of the Respondent that the said pleadings are wholly irrelevant, frivolous and scandalous, and amount to a gross abuse of the process of this Court. It is further urged that the Election Petition suffers from absence of essential material facts and particulars, fails to disclose a complete cause of action, and does not raise any triable issue, thereby rendering it liable to be dismissed at the preliminary stage itself.

2. Written objection has been filed by the Election Petitioner opposing the present application. It is contended that all material facts constituting a valid cause of action raising triable issues have been duly and substantially pleaded in the Election Petition. Accordingly, it is urged that the provisions of Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not attracted and the Election Petition cannot be dismissed at the threshold.

3. The Election Petition has been instituted by the Election Petitioner seeking the following reliefs: a) to declare the election of the sole Respondent, Sarada Prasad Nayak to 12-Rourkela Assembly Constituency as void; b) To direct a re-election/fresh poll in respect of the said Constituency; and c) to declare that the affidavit filed by the Respondent in Form-26 did not disclose complete and true information with regard to his criminal antecedents as well as details of immovable properties. The election of the Respondent has been questioned principally on grounds referable to Sections 100, 33A and 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It is specifically alleged that the Returning Officer improperly accepted the nomination of the returned candidate which is a ground under Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Act, inasmuch as:

i) The Respondent, while filing his nomination papers, failed to disclose material particulars in the affidavit in Form-26, namely:

(a) non-disclosure of certain pending criminal cases, and

b) non-disclosure of joint property holdings;

ii) such non-disclosure and suppression of material facts are stated to constitute violations of the mandatory requirements under Section 33A of the Act read with Rule 4A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, thereby rendering the acceptance of the nomination papers by the Returning Officer improper and invalid.

4. Pursuant to issuance of notice, the sole Respondent entered appearance and filed his written statement. Along with the same, the Respondent has also filed the present interlocutory application, the specific grounds of which shall be adverted to in the succeeding paragraphs. The Election Petitioner, on the other hand, has filed a detailed objection traversing and controverting the averments made therein.

5. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their original status in the Election Petition.

6. Heard Mr. U.K Samal, learned counsel for the sole Respondent/Petitioner in the I.A and Mr. Samvit Mohanty, learned counsel for the Election Petitioner/Opp. Party in I.A.

7. At the outset, Mr. Samal, submitted that paragraphs 1 to 7, paragraphs 9 to 12 and paragraphs 8-A to 8-I of the Election Petition merely narrate the issuance of statutory notifications,