Election petitions must contain material facts and comply with procedural requirements; failure to do so can result in dismissal or striking off of parts.

JUDGMENT :

Siddhartha Varma, J.

Civil Misc. Application No.4 of 2022 (Under Order VI Rule 16 CPC)

AND

Civil Misc. Application No.5 of 2022 (Under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC read with Section 86 (1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951)

1. The instant Election Petition was filed by the election petitioner to declare the election of the respondent-returned candidate as Member of Legislative Assembly from 262 Allahabad North Assembly Constituency, Prayagraj (Allahabad) null and void and also to set-aside the election. When the petition was filed, the respondent i.e. the elected Member of Legislative Assembly filed an application under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the striking off paragraph nos.7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 24A, 27(I), 27(II), 28(II), 28(IV), 28(V)(a), 28(V)(b), 28(V)(c), 28(V)(d), 28(V)(e), 28(V)(f), 28(V) (g), 28(V)(h), 28(V)(i), 28(V)(j), 28(V)(k), 28(V)(l), 28(V)(m), 28(V)(n), 29(I), 29(II), 29(III), 29(IV), 30, 30(I), 30(II), 30(III), 30(IV), 31(I), 31(III), 31(IV), 32(I), 32(III), 32(IV) and 32(V). A further prayer was made that Annexure Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 15-A be also struck off. Still further, the ground Nos.C, D and F were also prayed to be deleted from the record of the election petition.

2. The grounds taken for the striking off various paragraphs, annexures and the Grounds were that they were frivolous, vexatious, unnecessary, irrelevant and scandalous and that they were an abuse of the process of the Court. Another application was filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC read with section 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the "1951 Act") for the rejection of the plaint itself.

3. While pressing the application under section 86(1) of the 1951 Act, Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the returned candidate assisted by Sri Ravi Anand Agrawal, Sri Anup Kumar, Sri Ayush Shankar and Mithilesh Kumar Rai argued that an election petition which did not comply with the provisions of section 81 or section 82 of the 1951 Act or with the provisions of Section 117 of the 1951 Act had to be dismissed. While further pressing the application, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that every election petition had to be accompanied by as many copies there of as there were respondents mentioned in the petition and that every such copy had to be attested by the petitioner under his own signature stating it to be a true copy of the petition. While further pressing the application, he argued that the election petitioner had not supplied a true copy of the election petition to the respondent/returned candidate inasmuch as :

(a) the affidavits mentioned in paragraph 28(IV) i.e. the ones which were dated 4.2.2017 and 24.12.2012 bearing annexure-7 to the election petition had not been supplied or appended or marked as annexure-7 in the respondent's copy;

(b) page 161 of the election petition was totally illegible and blank; and

(c) the affidavits did not contain the name; seal and the endorsement of the Oath Commissioner.

4. With regard to the decisions of the Supreme Court, bolstering the case of the respondent-returned candidate, learned counsel for the respondent relied upon (1984) 3 SCC 339 : Rajendra Nath Singh vs. Usha Rani . He further relied upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in 1992 (3) AWC 1538 : Narendra vs. Sukhdeo & Ors. and the third de