The election petition must contain concise material facts and full particulars of any corrupt practice, and failure to disclose even a single material fact would entail dismissal of the election petition summarily as it does not furnish any cause of action.

Headnote:
Corrupt Practices - Election Petition - Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 77, 77(1), 80-a, 100(b), 100(d-ii), 100(d-iv), 123, 125(A), 126, 127-A - Rules 49C, 86, 89 of the Conduct of Election Rule, 1961 - Article 324 of the Constitution of India
Fact of the Case:

An election petition was filed seeking declaration of the result of the returned candidate as null and void, alleging corrupt practices. The petitioner contested the election as an independent candidate and alleged that the successful candidate did not maintain accurate election expenditure records, did not disclose assets in the affidavit, and undervalued the election campaign expenses.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the election petition failed to provide specific and unambiguous pleadings in relation to the alleged corrupt practices as mandated by the Act. The court emphasized the requirement for concise material facts and full particulars of any corrupt practice, and dismissed the election petition in limine due to the lack of specific details and material facts.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the election petition should be dismissed in limine due to the failure to provide specific and unambiguous pleadings in relation to the alleged corrupt practices.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the election petition must contain concise material facts and full particulars of any corrupt practice, and failure to disclose even a single material fact would entail dismissal of the election petition summarily as it does not furnish any cause of action.
Final Decision: The application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was allowed, and the election petition was rejected.

JAISHREE THAKUR, J.

1. An election petition has been filed under Sections 77, 77(1), 80-a & 100 (b) & (d-ii & iv), 123, 125 (A), 126, 127-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1951) read with Rules 49C, 86, 89 of the Conduct of Election Rule, 1961 and under Article 324 of the Constitution of India seeking declaration of the result dated 24.10.2019 of the returned candidate i.e. respondent herein, as null and void, with a further prayer to debar the said candidate from contesting election for a period of six years as provided under Section 8 of the Act of 1951.

2. In brief, the facts as stated are that elections were notified to be held in the State of Haryana vide gazette notification dated 27.09.2019. The last date for filing the nomination papers was 04.10.2019; with scrutiny of nomination on 05.10.2019 and last date of withdrawal of candidature on 07.10.2019. Polling commenced on 21.10.2019 and counting of votes and declaration of result were scheduled for 24.10.2019. The petitioner contested the 21st Karnal Assembly Constituency election as an independent candidate and there were total 10 candidates in the fray. A total number of 122838 votes were polled and respondent-Manohar Lal secured highest number of votes with 79,492 votes. The second highest votes were obtained by Tarlochan Singh of Indian National Congress Party with 34,557 votes. The petitioner herein secured 170 votes. Alleging corrupt practices by the successful/returned candidate/and his election agents, the election petition has been filed.

3. The primary thrust of the allegations in the election petition as filed by Mr. Ramesh Khatri, the petitioner in person, is that the successful candidate has not maintained a register of day-to-day accurate election expenditure as mandated under Section 77 of the Act of 1951; that the said respondent has filed a detailed affidavit stating his age as 65 years, however, he did not disclose his assets in the affidavit, which is mandatory as per Rules; that the respondent has filed his nomination paper in the 21st Karnal Assembly Constituency and at the time of filing of nomination form large number of vehicles including cars, jeeps, three wheelers were used and several persons accompanied the respondent; that Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh and several Ministers of Haryana were also part of the rally conducted before filing nomination form and arrangements for thousand chairs, sofa sets, generator sets, loudspeakers, tents etc. were made, however, neither the candidate nor his election agent, has shown accurate day to day election expenses incurred on 01.10.2019; that the election campaign has been grossly undervalued; that on 07.10.2019 BJP President of the Chandigarh Unit participated in the campaign of assembly election but again these expenses were not reflected in the day to day expenditure register. Apart from these expenses, the petitioner has enlisted various other dates where rallies/election campaigns were done, however, it is pleaded that expenses of these rallies too did not find any reference in the election expenditure register. The sum and substance of the allegations as set out in the election petition is that various campaigns were held and expenditure as incurred which was to be detailed in the register to be maintained, has not been done.

4. The election petition filed is duly supported by an affidavit of the petitioner.

5. Pursuant to the notice of motion issued, successful candidate i.e. the respondent besides filing his written statement has filed an application under Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC and Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for dismissal of the election petition in limine. The dismissal of the election petition has been sought primarily on the ground that the petitioner has to plead all ‘material facts’ and failure to plead even a single material fact would make the election petition liable