An election petition cannot be dismissed on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action unless the allegations made in the petition are so vague and indefinite that they do not provide the respondent with sufficient notice of the case he has to meet.

( 1 ) IN the election for the U. P. Legislative Assembly, one of the constituencies which was called upon to elect a member was 285 Jahanabad Fatehpur Assembly constituency, Feb. 6, 1985 was the last date for filing of nominations. Scrutiny was to take place on Feb. 7. The date of poll was March 5, 1985. Counting of votes was fixed for March 5, 1985. A number of people filed their nominations but after scrutiny and withdrawal 13 candidates remained in the field. Petitioner Naresh Kumar Uttar was one of them. The other 12 were the first respondent Prakash Narain Awasthi and 11 others who are also impleaded as respondents in the petition. Polling took place on March 5, 1985. Counting was done in the compound of District Court, Fatehpur from 8 A. M. on March 6, 1985. Naresh Kumar Uttarm a Lok Dal candidate, was declared to have obtained 31498 votes while Prakash Narain Awasthi of the Indian National Congress was said to have obtained 31619 votes. Of the total 77005 votes, 1169 votes were declared to be invalid. Prakash Narain Awasthi was declared to have been elected. The difference between the votes received by him and petitioner Uttam was shown to be of 123 votes

( 2 ) ON April 11, 1985, the present election petition was filed in this Court challenging the election of Prakash Narain Awasthi. The grounds of challenge contained in Para 13 of the petition are two. They have been stated thus :" (A) Because the result of the election has been materially affected by non-compliance and the contravention of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1951 and Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and Orders framed there and directions issued from time to time by the Election Commission of India. (B) Because the result of the election has been materially affected by the improper reception of invalid votes in favour of the respondent 1, by improper refusal of acceptance of valid votes of the petitioner and by improper rejection of valid votes of the petitioner. "

( 3 ) IN respect of Ground (A), a concise statement of material facts has been given out in para 14 of the petition while in respect of Ground (B), it has been given out in para 15. Both these paragraphs run into various sub-paragraphs. The basic relief sought in the petition is that the election of Awasthi, the first respondent, be declared to be null and void and petitioner Uttam be declared to be duly elected Member of the U. P. Legislative Assembly from the Constituency in question.

( 4 ) ON Sept. 10, 1985 some applications were made in this petition, one of them being paper No. A-8 with a prayer that some of the paras be deleted from the election petition under R. 16 of O. VI, C. P. C. and the petition itself be then dismissed under R. 11 of O. VII, C. P. C. as disclosing no cause of action. This application is supported by an affidavit of the first respondent. A counter affidavit (A-9) has been sworn in it by the petitioner Naresh Kumar Uttar. Shaila Nath, a pairokar of the first respondent has sworn a rejoinder affidavit in the application. The application was heard on several dates and orders reserved therein on March 10, 1987. Sri A. Kumar argued the matter op behalf of the respondent Awasthi while Sri. R. C. Srivastava appeared on behalf of the petitioner Uttam Both of them referred to a number of decisions of the Supreme Court and some of this Court during the course of their submissions. Such of them as are relevant for a decision on the questions canvassed before me shall be noticed at the appropriate place.

( 5 ) THE first submission which Sri Kumar made was that the grounds of challenge to the election contained in para 13 of the petition are mere reproduction of the language of S. 100 (1) (d) (iii) and S. 100 (1) (d) (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and do not amount to a ground of challenge to the election of the first respondent on either of the two sub-clauses of Cl. (d) (iii) and (d) (iv) of S. 100 (1), inasmuch as there