The election of the respondent No. 1 is liable to be set aside under subsection (1) of Sec. 123 read with Section 100 (1) (b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as stated in para 11 of the petition.

( 1 ) AS many as thirteen respondents are arrayed in this Election Petition of whom the returned candidate is respondent No. 1, Mahendra Baudh. The other unsuccessful candidates besides the Election Petitioner, are impleaded as respondents 2 to 12. Respondent No. 13 is the Returning Officer.

( 2 ) FIRST respondent's election from 22, Seondha Vidhan Sabha constituency is challenged in this petition. It is the constituency reserved for scheduled caste candidates. The polling had taken place on 27-2-1990 and counting of votes was done on 28-2-1990. The first respondent had secured 21577 votes as against Election Petitioner 21197 and, therefore, was declared elected on 1-3-1990 by Returning Officer on his having secured the highest number of votes.

( 3 ) ALTHOUGH the petition was lodged on 16-4-1990, service on all respondents could not be effected until 9-11-1990 though the two contesting respondents, Nos. 1 and 13, entered appearance as early as on 3-8-1990. Returns were flied on 19-11-1990 by respondent No. 13 and on 22-11-1990 by respondent No. 1 However, before that, on 9-11-1990, I. A. No. I, preferred by respondent No. 1 was heard and disposed of.

( 4 ) COUNSEL were heard on the contention agitated in I. A. No. I in terms of Sections 83 (1) and 86 (5), the Representation of the People Act, 1951, for short, the 'act' and the prayer made for striking out clauses (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of para 11 and paras 12, 13 and 15 of the Election Petition was disposed of on 9-11-1990. It was found that there was no scope to hold any part of para 11 as wanting in Material facts. However, para 12 was struck out on reaching a finding that two most material particulars of corrupt practice alleged therein were missing. Allegations were made in that para against two persons, Sitaram and Banwari of their allegedly being paid some amount by respondent No. 1 with the object of influencing them and also the result of the election. The date or dates of the alleged payment and the amount or amounts allegedly paid not being mentioned, the allegation was regarded as vague and was found being fatally hit by Sections 83 (1) (b) and 86 (5) of the Act Accordingly, that para was struck out. Similarly, a part of para 13 was struck out, being found materially deficient because the names of _workers and agents of respondent No. 1" who were referred to had not been given. Those words, herein extracted, figuring in the last part of first sentence of para 13, were struck out. Although on the same ground of non-specification of the names of "large number of his workers And supporters as counting agents" who, as alleged in para 15 had got admitted into the counting room by exercising undue influence, the prayer was pressed for striking out para 15 as well, that was not accepted. It was held that by itself, para 16 was incomplete and the succeeding paragraphs 16 to 22 had to be read together along with para 15 to comprehend the scope and character of the challenge which assailed the conduct not of the returned candidate (respondent No. 1), but of the Returning Officer as that related to the counting of votes. In reaching that conclusion, Election Petitioner's counsel's contention was accepted that the ground of the challenge to the election was to be determined with reference to clause (iv) of Section 100 (1) (d) of the Act and the provisions of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, Rules 52 et. seq.

( 5 ) IN the Election Petition, at para 9, is summed up and framed the broad outline of the challenge to the election. It is contended that the nomination paper of respondent No. 1 was improperly and wrongfully accepted and that had materially affected the result of the election in so far as it concerned the returned candidate. Secondly, corrupt practices were committed by respondent No. 1, his election agent and other persons, with his consent; and thirdly, there was non-compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules and orders made thereunder. A