R.C.Mishra, J.

( 1. ) This order shall govern disposal of I.A.No.1/10 which is an application, under Order VII Rule 11(a) read with Order VI Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") and Section 83(l)(a) of the Representation of People Act (for short the Act), moved by the respondent no. 1 for rejection of the election petition for non-disclosure of cause of action or a triable issue.

( 2. ) The respondent nos.2 to 25 have remained unrepresented despite service of respective notices.

( 3. ) In this petition, election of the returned candidate viz. the respondent no.1 from M.P. Legislative Assembly Constituency Sirmour No.68 has been called in question on the grounds mentioned in sub-clauses (iii) and (iv) of Section 100(1)(d) of the Act with a prayer for a direction to order re-inspection/recount of ballot papers. The petitioner has further sought a declaration that, he himself has been duly elected from the Constituency.

( 4. ) According to the petitioner, on 08.12.2008 upon conclusion of the counting of votes, he had won the election by securing the highest votes and, accordingly, the official website of Election Commission of India namely www.ceomadhyapradesh.nic.in also displayed that as the official candidate of Indian National Congress, he had secured 456 votes more than his nearest rival viz. the respondent no. 1 who represented Bahujan Samaj Party. Similar result was broadcasted on the National Channel of Doordarshan as well as in the regional news on Bhopal Doordarshan between 7.30 to 7.35 p.m. The release by Press Trust of India and the corresponding result uploaded on the official website of Web Duniya viz. http://hindi.webdunia.com/election08 result/ElectionInfo.htm also contained the same information. However, at about 9 p.m., to his utter dismay, the returning officer informed that he had lost election to respondent no.1 by a margin of 309 votes. On verification, it was found that there was a considerable difference in the number of votes polled and the number of votes counted. Further, there was a difference of 947 votes between the final result sheet prepared in form no.20 and return of election in form no.21-E. Suspecting manipulation in the relevant records, he on 09.12.2008 not only made complaint to the Election Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal but also to the Chief Election Commissioner on 13.12.2008. However, no cognizance upon the complaint was taken presumably on the ground that the election commission has no authority to interfere with the process of election after declaration of the result.

( 5. ) In the light of these pleadings, the petitioner has further averred that the result of the election, in so far as it concerned the respondent no.1 was materially affected -

(i) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of votes and (ii) by non-compliance with Rule 54A and 56A of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (for brevity the Election Rules).

( 6. ) As pointed out already, the prayer for rejection has been made by respondent no. 1 primarily on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action. To substantiate the contention he has invited attention to the following facts -

(i) Although the petitioner has sought a direction for recounting or re-inspection of votes yet, no such prayer was made, by him or his counting agent, (a) before the Returning Officer as contemplated under Rule 63(2) of the Election Rules or (b) in the complaint made to the Election Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal or (c) in the complaint made to the Chief Election Commissioner of India.

(ii) The petition solely based on wrong information disseminated through website or television is not maintainable. Further, even if it is assumed that the petitioner was precluded from making representation in view of a wrong declaration of result on the website or on the television, he was required to offer an explanation as to why the facts pertaining to improper acceptance or rejection of vote