Failure to comply with statutory requirements regarding material facts and submission of integral documents renders an election petition dismissible at the threshold.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

1. The present application has been filed by the sole Respondent in the above-mentioned Election Petition under 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 prays for striking out the pleadings contained in Paragraphs 10 (A) to 10 (H) and for the rejection/dismissal of the Election Petition in its entirety at the very threshold in terms of Section 86 of the said Act. It is contended that the pleadings sought to be struck off are wholly irrelevant, frivolous, and scandalous, amounting to gross abuse of the process of this Court. Additionally, it is submitted that the Election Petition lacks essential material facts and particulars, fails to disclose a complete cause of action, and does not raise any triable issues, thereby warranting its dismissal at the preliminary stage.

2. The election petition has been filed by the election petitioner (a) to declare the election of Respondent, Sarada Prasad Nayak void and (b) to direct re- election/fresh poll with respect to 12-Rourkela Assembly Constituency to the Odisha State Legislative Assembly. The election of the Respondent has been questioned principally on the following two grounds (along with its details), attracting the provisions of Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951:

(A) Improper Acceptance of Nomination by the Returning Officer-

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

(a) Non-disclosure of pending criminal cases. (b) Non-disclosure of joint property holdings.

ii) Such non-disclosure and suppression of material facts constitute violations of the mandatory requirements under Section 33A of the Act, read with Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, thereby rendering the acceptance of nomination papers by the Returning Officer improper within the meaning of Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

(B) Corrupt Practice-

(i) One Ajaya Kumar Pradhan, a close associate of the Respondent and a government official deployed on election duty in respect of the 12-Rourkela Assembly Constituency, committed acts amounting to corrupt practice under Section 123 of the Act by posting “selfie” photographs on Facebook displaying an open EVM and VVPAT machine during the election period, thereby compromising the secrecy and sanctity of the voting process.

(ii) Subsequently his presence in a closed-room meeting with the Respondent during the election period, suggests collusion, partisanship, and breach of neutrality mandated of election officials.

3. Pursuant to notice, the Respondent entered appearance and filed his written statement. In addition, the Respondent has filed the present application on grounds which shall be adverted to in the subsequent paragraphs. The Election Petitioner has filed detailed objections controverting the averments made therein.

4. In the present application, the Respondent has contended that the copy of Election Petition served upon him is defective inasmuch as it contains two separate pages bearing the same page number ‘26’ with different contents, thereby not constituting an attested true copy of the petition as filed before this Court, in contravention of Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, warranting dismissal under Section 86(1) thereof. It is further urged that the pleadings in Paragraphs 10(A) to 10(H) of the pe