An election petition must contain a concise statement of material facts to support the claim for inspection of ballot papers or recount. Vague and general allegations that do not provide specific details or evidence of irregularities will not be sufficient to justify such an order.

( 1 ) THIS is an election petition under S. 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

( 2 ) GENERAL Election to the State Legislative Assembly took place in the month of March. 1985. For the Legislative Assembly Constituency No. 227 Ballia, the last date for filing the nominations was notified as 6th Feb. 1986; the scrutiny was to take place on the 7th and the nomination could be withdrawn up to 9th Feb. The poll took place on 2nd March, 1985. The petitioner and the respondents 1 to 19 were the contesting candidates at this election. Counting of votes took place on 6th March followed by the declaration of the result. The respondent 1 was declared elected defeating the petitioner, who was the nearest rival, by a margin of 1645 votes.

( 3 ) THE election of the respondent is challenged by the petitioner on two grounds. The first is that on the date of the nomination the respondent was the Principal. Shahid Mangal Pandey Intermediate College, Nagwa district Ballia a recognised Government institution and as such he was disqualified from seeking election to the State Legislative Assembly in view of Art. 191 (1) (a) of the Constitution. Due to the nomination of the respondent being accepted, however, the election was materially affected so far as the returned candidate is concerned. The other ground raised is that there has been breach of the provisions of the Act Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, in the matter of counting of the ballot papers thereby affecting the result materially. The relief claimed is declaration that the election of the respondent 1 is void and that the petitioner is duly elected. The petitioner has also prayed for inspection, scrutiny and recounting of the entire set of used acid rejected ballot papers and the counterfoils.

( 4 ) THE petition is resisted by the respondent 1, who has put in application under Order VI Rule 16 Civil P. C. read with order VII Rule 17 s. 83 (1) (a) of the Act contending that there is no cause of action disclosed in the petition nor the material facts stated and hence the petition deserves to be dismissed.

( 5 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

( 6 ) SO far as the ground No. 1 of the petition, referred to above. is concerned it is urged by the learned counsel for the respondent that this same ground arose recently in Election Petn. No. 54 of 1985 (Sarnam Singh v. Smt. Pushpa Devi, decided on 17th Jan. 1986) (reported in 1986 All LJ 507 ). The question arising therein also was whether the respondent, a teacher in the Babu Ram Singh Intermediate College, budaun a State aided educational institution could be said to hold an office of profit under the State Government and, therefore considered disqualified from seeking election to the State Legislative Assembly in view of Art. 191 (1) (a) of the Constitution. After detailed consideration the finding arrived at by me therein was as follows :-"in the light of the aforesaid discussion my conclusions are that the control of the State Government though expanding vis-a-vis the Committee of Management constituted under the Scheme of Administration framed in accordance with the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act or the Commission created under the U. P. Act 5 of 1982 is not such as might give rise to any conflict between the personal interest of a person placed in the position of the respondent No. 8 as teacher in a Higher Secondary School and his duties as a member of the Legislature and in this manner defeat the central object underlying the statutory disqualification. The acceptance of his nomination was, therefore, not improper. "

( 7 ) NOTHING has been pointed by the petitioners learned counsel to lead to a different opinion on this aspect of the matter. All that was submitted by him was that the question is pending before the Supreme Court in another case and hence the proceedings in this petition be kept stayed. For reasons recorded separately, which need not he