JUDGMENT

Daya Chaudhary, J. - The present election petition has been filed by petitioner Harkirat Singh under Section 81 of The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "The Act") to challenge the election of respondent Amarinder Singh to the Punjab Legislative Assembly (Vidhan Sabha) i.e. 76 Patiala Town Assembly Constituency held on 13.02.2002 and result thereof was declared on 24.02.2002, mainly on the ground of "corrupt practices" adopted by respondent in obtaining/procuring assistance of senior gazetted officers of the State for influencing the voters to cast their votes in his favour; incurring more expenses than the prescribed limit and some of the expenses have not been reflected in the accounts of election expenditure submitted by him. Respondent has also projected himself as "Maharaja of Patiala" in the posters issued/published by him just to influence the voters, which also amounts to "corrupt practices" as per provisions of Section 123(2) of the Act.

2. Notice of the election petition was issued to the respondent, who put in appearance through his counsel and filed written statement wherein several preliminary objection were raised including the maintainability of the election petition. Petitioner also filed replication to the written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, this Court framed the following issues vide order dated 23.09.2002 :-

1. Whether the respondent has committed the corrupt practice of procuring and obtaining the assistance of a gazetted officer as envisaged under Section 123(7) (a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as alleged in paras No. 4 to 7 of the election petition ? OPP

2. Whether the respondent has committed the corrupt practice of procuring and obtaining the assistance of a police officer as envisaged under Section 123 (7) (d) of the Representation of the People Act as alleged in paras No. 8 to 9 of the election petition ? OPP

3. Whether the respondent has committed the corrupt practice of undue influence as envisaged under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act as alleged in para No.10 of the election petition? OPP

4. Whether the respondent has committed the corrupt practice of excessive expenditure as envisaged under Section 123(6) of the Representation of the People Act as alleged in para No. 11 of the election petition? OPP

5. Whether the election petition is liable to be dismissed as the allegations of corrupt practice are not supported by a valid and legal affidavit as mentioned in preliminary objections No. 1 and 2 of the written statement? OPR

6. Whether the election petition lacks material facts and particulars and discloses no cause of action as mentioned in preliminary objection No.3 to 10 of the written statement? OPR

7. Whether the election petition is liable to be dismissed being incomplete as mentioned in para No.11 of the preliminary objections of the written statement? OPR

8. Whether the election petition is not verified as required under Order 6 Rule 15 of C.P.C., if so its effect? OPR

9. Relief.

3. However, issues No. 5 to 8 were treated as preliminary issues by this Court. After hearing the arguments on said preliminary issues, the election petition was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 03.11.2004 on the ground that the petitioner failed to disclose the material facts regarding corrupt practices to constitute a complete cause of action. Said judgment dated 03.11.2004, dismissing the election petition by this Court, was challenged by the election petitioner before Hon'ble the Apex Court by way of filing an appeal, which was allowed vide order dated 16.12.2005 and judgment dated 03.11.2004 passed by this Court was set aside. The case was remitted to this Court for deciding the same on merits as the petition was dismissed only on preliminary ground being not maintainable, whereas it was required to be decided on merits.

4. In support of their case, both the parties led their respective oral as well as