The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for election petitions to plead material facts, provide specific details, and comply with the affidavit requirements under Rule 94A of the Rules. Non-compliance with these legal provisions can lead to the summary dismissal of the election petition.

K.K. Lahoti, J.

Order on I.A. No. 76/09 under Order 7 Rule 11 and under Order 6 Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

1. The respondent has filed this application for dismissal of the election petition on following grounds:

(a) That the election petition is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of section 81(1) (a), (b) and (c) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act').

(b) That the petitioner has not made specific allegations in the manner prescribed under the Act. Each allegation of corrupt practice should have been mentioned with material facts and particulars thereof in accordance with the provisions of section 81(1) (a) and (b) of the Act.

(c) That the petitioner has not disclosed that on what date and the time the respondent committed corrupt practice. What are the acts alleged aganst the respondent amount to corrupt practice. Particulars have not been furnished by the petitioner.

(d) That apart from an affidavit filed along with the election petition, a specific affidavit in support of the allegations of the corrupt practice ought to have been filed in Form No. 25 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). In absence of such an affidavit, the election petition is liable to be dismissed in so far as it relates to allegations of corrupt practice. The affidavit filed alongwith the election petition does not comply with the provisions as contained in Rule 94A of the Rules.

(e) That in absence of the sufficient material in the pleadings, the election petition does not disclose a cause of action for filing of the petition for its trial and on this ground alone the election petition is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner has not furnished the name of parties alleged to have been committed corrupt practice, the date and place of commission of such corrupt practice.

(f) That the petitioner has not disclosed, by which unfair means and corrupt practice the respondent contested the election. Though the petitioner has alleged that the officers and Presiding Officers were belonging to Kurmi caste, helped the respondent for using unfair means but neither the name of such Returning Officers or Presiding Officers nor particulars of unfair means have been alleged.

(g) That allegations in respect of bogus voting are without any particulars.

(h) That in respect of Electronic Voting Machine (for short 'EVMs'), the allegations are made of tempering but no particulars are furnished. In absence of which, no cause of action arose to the petitioner for filing this election petition. That the allegations in the petition that there was difference in the votes at the time of tallying but no particulars in this regard has been furnished, even the names of counting Agents and Polling Officers alleged to threatened are not mentioned.

(i) That no document has been filed or supplied to the respondent, though the petitioner has relied upon the documents in the election petition, in absence of which, no reply to the election petition can be filed.

(j) That the petitioner has not signed and verified each page of the petition in the manner prescribed. The petitioner has also not signed the affidavit which has been filed in support of the election petition. The copy supplied to the respondent does not disclose that the petitioner was identified by any person. The copy supplied to the petitioner is not the correct copy of the affidavit filed alongwith the election petition.

On the aforesaid grounds, it is stated by the respondent that the present election petition which has been filed without particulars and material facts may be dismissed or Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 of the election petition be directed to be deleted.

2. Petitioner herein in spite of seeking time initially on 4-9-2009 for two weeks, thereafter on 9-10-2009 by way of last opportunity and on 13-11-2009 on payment of cost of Rs. 1000/- has not filed reply of this application. Ultimately on 4-