An election petition must disclose material facts and triable issues to withstand scrutiny under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act; vague allegations do not suffice.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

1. This application has been filed by the sole Respondent of the above Election Petition under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC read with Section 83 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 to reject/dismiss the Election Petition in its entirety at the very threshold. It is stated that the pleadings in the election petition disclose no cause of action and are vague, baseless without any source of information or foundational pleadings so as to constitute material facts. Further, the Election Petition being bereft of material facts and particulars and not constituting any triable issues needs to be dismissed at the threshold.

2. The Election Petition has been filed by the Election Petitioner questioning the election of the sole Respondent from 54-Sukinda Assembly Constituency to the Odisha State Legislative Assembly in the General Elections, 2024, seeking the prayers as enumerated under Paragraphs-(a) to (f) of the prayer portion of the petition. Pursuant to the notification issued by the Election Commission of India, polling was conducted and upon counting of votes the Respondent was declared elected after securing the highest number of votes, the margin of victory being 9,577 votes over the Election Petitioner. Pursuant to summons issued by this Court upon admission of the Election Petition, the sole Respondent entered appearance and filed his written statement. In addition, he has filed the present I.A. to which a written objection has been filed by the Election Petitioner.

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

4. The grounds set forth by the Respondent in the present application are that the pleadings in the election petition are insufficient to constitute a cause of action. It is stated that allegations relating to non-disclosure of criminal cases amount in substance to allegations of corrupt practice, yet the petition does not contain the mandatory particulars required in law. It is further contended that the two proceedings relied upon by the Election Petitioner either arise from quasi-civil statutory proceedings or relate to offences carrying punishment below the statutory period for mandatory disclosure and, therefore, even if undisclosed, do not furnish a ground to void the election. With regard to educational qualification, the Respondent states that the allegation is vague, unsupported by source or documentary foundation, and incapable of trial. On these premises, rejection of the election petition at the threshold is sought.

5. The Election Petitioner in his objection to the present application has stated that this application itself is belated and intended to delay the statutory trial of the election petition. Further, the election petitioner has specifically pleaded the existence of two pending criminal cases, the relevant court orders, the omission of disclosure in Form-26, the incorrect statement of educational qualification, and the manner in which such suppression materially affected the voters’ informed choice and the election outcome. According to the Election Petitioner, these pleadings clearly disclose triable issues which can only be adjudicated in trial.

6. Heard Mr. P.K. Rath, learned Senior counsel with Mr. P.K Satpathy, learned counsel appearing for the sole Respondent-Petitioner in the I.A. and Mr. U.K. Samal learned Senior Counsel with Mr. M.R. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Election Petitioner-Opp. Party in the I.A.

7. At the outset, Mr. U.K. Samal raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the present application. He subm