Election petitions must contain concise statements of material facts and particulars of alleged corrupt practices; failure to do so renders the petition non-maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

Heard Sri Narendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent-returned candidate, namely, Hakim Lal.

2. The election petition questions election to the constituency 58 Handia, district of Prayagraj for the U.P. State legislative assembly. The returned candidate Mr. Hakim Lal has moved application to reject election petitioner under Section 86(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short R.P. Act) and also under rule 11(a) of Order VII of CPC. There is another misc. application under Order VI Rule 16 CPC.

3. The election petition questions the election of returned candidate Mr. Hakim Lal for corrupt practise at his end that led to his victory.

4. It was submitted by learned counsel appearing for the returned candidate that petitioner was eligible to contest the election of the legislative assembly of the State and earned no disqualification either under the R.P. Act,1951 or under the Constitution of India vide its Article 173. It was further submitted that affidavit that contained necessary information on a printed format prescribed for under Rule 4-a read with Section 33 of the R.P. Act, 1951, is meant for display both on the conspicuous place by returning officer, inasmuch as, uploaded on the official website of the State Election Officer. He submitted that such an information continues to be available on the official website and anybody can have easy access to the same. It was also argued that political parties are also required to publish such information regarding their respective candidates and, therefore, every information is made available in the public domain before the election is held and so nobody can be mislead as to credentials of a candidate in public election.

5. He submitted that Section 83(1) provided for an election petition to contain concise statement of material facts upon which petitioner relies and then to set-forth the material particulars of any corrupt practise that is alleged by the petitioner indicating the name of parties who committed such corrupt practise, then date and place of commission of such practise, the petition to be verified and signed by the petitioner and then proviso to Section 83(1), further required election petitioner to file an affidavit to accompany the election petition in a prescribed format in support of allegations of such corrupt practise and particulars thereof.

6. It was argued that sub-section 2 of Section 83 provided that schedule or annexure appended to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and in the event if any of these were found to be lacking in an election petition it would deserve dismissal. He submitted that since affidavit was available in the public domain, it ought to have been filed in support of the pleadings, that would have clarified the allegations made as the pleadings, according to him, raised in the relevant paragraphs were quite vague. He also argued that since manner in which pleadings had been raised appeared to be frivolous and vexatious for want of specific and concise statement as to the corrupt practise and the Court even might strike down such pleadings.

7. Now to examine the pleadings as to ground No. 8-a and the pleadings in respect thereof made in paragraph 10 of the election petition, learned Advocate took the Court to the affidavit accompanying election petition as required as per proviso to Section 83-1 of the R.P. Act 1951.

8. Arguing in support of miscellaneous applications Sri Pandey submitted that election petition on the ground that nomination paper and affidavit on form 26 were not properly filled as per Section 33 and 33-A of the R.P.Act, itself was not maintainable for the reason that no such nomination form as filed under Section 33 nor, form 26 accompanied it. He submitted that Section 33 of the R.P. Act, 1951 referred to nomination paper to be completed and filled on prescribed format. The form was prescribed under Rule 4 of the 1961 Rules and nomination paper was given as form