The main legal point established in the judgment is that the permissibility of amending an Election Petition under Section 86(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is limited to the particulars of any alleged corrupt practice and does not extend to introducing new material facts.

1. Surinder Pal-petitioner, in this Election Petition is a voter in Rampura Phul (No. 113) constituency of Vidhan Sabha. Six issues were framed out of which issues Nos. 1 and 2 were treated as preliminary issues. These preliminary issues read as under :-

1. Whether the election petition is liable to be rejected in view of the preliminary objection to the effect that material facts and necessary particulars have not been stated in the petition? OPR

2. Whether the facts averred in Paragraphs 4 to 6 of the election petition constitute corrupt practices within the meaning and ambit of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act? OPP

2. When the file was coming up for arguments on preliminary issues, the petitioner filed an application for amendment in the Election Petition under Section 86 (5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 It was contested by respondent No. 1.

3. The arguments have been heard on the preliminary issues reproduced above and also on the application for amendment of the Election Petition.

4. Hence this order.

5. The general elections to the Vidhan Sabha in the State of Punjab were notified by the Election Commission of India on 26-12-2001 as under :-

a) Date for calling upon the constituency 16-1-2002 (Wed)

b) Last date for making nominations 23-1-2002 (Wed)

c) Date for Scrutiny of nominations 24-1-2001 (Thu)(24-1-2002)

d) Last date of withdrawal of Candidatures 28-1-2002 (Mon)

e) Date of Poll, if necessary 13-2-2001 (Wed) (13-2-2002)

f) Hours of Poll 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

g) Date for counting of votes 24-2-2002 (Sun)

h) Date before which elections shall be completed 28-2-2002 (Thu)

(Dates were wrongly recorded at c) and e) as 2001. Actually the year admittedly is 2002)

6 The result of the election was declared on 24-2-2002. Gurpreet Singh Kangar-respondent No. 1 was the candidate declared elected, while respondent No. 2, Sikandar Singh Maluka was the candidate defeated. The remaining seven respondents were the other candidates who tried their luck in Rampura Phul constituency of the Vidhan Sabha (No. 113). As stated above, the petitioner was the voter in the said constituency.

7. The petitioner challenged the election of Gurpreet Singh Kangar-respondent No. 1 on the following pleas :-

i) On 5-1-2002, a cultural programme was organised by the Malwa Sabhiacharak Manch, in which respondent No. 1 (Gurpreet Singh Kangar) made speeches and by promising money to the voters, he committed a gross corrupt practice of bribery as envisaged under Section 123 (1) of the Representation of the People Act.

ii) Respondent No. 1 (Gurpreet Singh Kangar) made false statements/publications which he believed to be wrong and false in relation to the personal character and conduct of respondent No. 2 (Sikandar Singh Maluka) and calculated to prejudice the prospects of respondent No. 2.

iii) He took active assistance of a teacher, namely, Manjit Inder Singh of

village Bhagta, who was a Government servant. In order to get support from the teachers community and also from a Forest Guard (Government servant), namely, Harinder Singh. Assistance was also taken from many other Government servants.

8. Hence, it was prayed that the election of Gurpreet Singh Kangar, respondent No. 1, be set aside and declared null and void and Sikandar Singh Maluka, respondent No. 2 be declared elected from Rampura Phul constituency.

9. In the written reply, respondent No. 1 took preliminary objections and also controverted the allegations made in the Election Petition by the petitioner.

10. Replication was filed, in which the allegations were reasserted.

11. As discussed above, issues were framed.

12. Thereafter, an application for amendment under Section 86 (5) of the Representation of the People Act, was filed by the petitioner in which he sought to amend Paragraph 5 of the Election Petition, which contained the allegations of corrupt practices. It was pleaded that the date when the speeches were made by respondent No. 1 was 10-2-2002, t