Dalveer Bhandari, J.— Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgement and order of the High Court of Bombay Bench at Goa passed in Election Application No. 5 of 2007 in Election Petition No. 1 of 2007 on 4th July, 2008.

3. The respondent herein has filed an election petition in the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging the election of the appellant (respondent no.1 in the election petition) to Goa Legislative Assembly from 35 Sanvordem Assembly Constituency. In the assembly elections held on 2nd June, 2007, the appellant secured overwhelming mandate from the electorates securing 10705 votes out of total 19657 votes polled whereas, his nearest rival (respondent no. 2 in the election petition) set up by the Bharatiya Janata Party secured only 3782 votes and the election petition before the High Court, a prayer has been made to declare the election of the appellant herein as null and void on ground of corrupt practices in which the appellant indulged during the elections. The allegations in the petition are as under:

(i) The returned candidate with an intent to secure the votes of the voters of his constituency got 13 bore wells constructed at his own cost in the seven villages of the said contituency;

(ii) The returned candidate has also provided ambulances to the villages namely Collem, Sanvordem, Mollem, Dharbandora and Khirpal Dabhal as a part of his action in luring voters to vote in his favour.

4. It has also been alleged that the appellant indulged in the abovementioned corrupt practices and incurred election expenditure in contravention of section 77 of the Representation of the People Act, 151 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) thereby crossing the limit of Rs. 5,00,000/-prescribed under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

5. The written statement to the election petition was filed by the appellant in the High Court. The allegations mentioned in the election petition were specifically refuted and denied in the written statment. A part from number of preliminary objections, it was stated by the appellant that the election petition does not comply with the provisions of Chapter II of the Act and is, therefore, required to be dismissed at the threshold.

6. The appellant also stated in the written statement that the election petition does not contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the respondent relies and, therefore, the petition does not comply with clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 83 of the Act. It was also incorporated in the written statement that the election petition does not set forth the material facts of the alleged corrupt practice. The respondent herein has also failed to disclose the names of the parties alleged to have committed the corrupt practice. In the election petition, the date and place of the commission of such, alleged corrupt practice has not been mentioned and, therefore, the election petition deserved to be dismissed as not maintainable.

7. In the written statement it was also stated that the appellant secured 10705 votes whereas the respondent (election petitioner) got only 275 votes. The margin is too huge to state that the candidate has been returned on account of some alleged corrupt practice. The respondent in the election petition is required to show that the candidate has been elected and that the result of the election has been materially affected by any alleged corrupt practice committed as such.

8. The allegations of alleged corrupt practices pleaded by respondent (election petitioner) are limited to digging of 13 bore wells in villages falling under the constituency in question after issuance of the election notification. The basis for this allegation is that the machinery allegedly used to dig bore holes in the ground as mentioned in paragraph 16 of the election petition was the same machinery owned by a third party which was hired in the past to work for the Salgaoncar Mining Industries at Vagus valley. The respondent