An election petition must contain material facts; vague allegations without substantiation lead to dismissal.

ORDER :

PRANAY VERMA, J.

1. The parties have been heard on application bearing I.A. No.7086 of 2024 filed by the respondent under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the election petition.

2. This election petition has been preferred by the election petitioner for setting aside the election of the respondent to the Madhya Pradesh State Legislative Assembly from 167 Shajapur Assembly Constituency on the ground of the same being void and non-est in law and for directing re- inspection/examination of 158 invalid votes and to count the same by opening the votes contained in form 13- B.

3. The application for rejection of the election petition has been preferred by the respondent submitting that the election petitioner has challenged the election of the respondent on the ground provided under Clause (i) of Section 100(1)(d) of Representation of People Act, 1951 which is regarding improper acceptance of any nomination. The challenge is on the ground that the respondent in the affidavit submitted along with the nomination form as provided in Section 33-A of the Act has not furnished the details of three criminal cases registered against him. The election has also been challenged on the ground provided under Clause (iii) of Section 100 (1)(d) of the Act, 1951 which provides for illegal rejection or reception of votes.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the ground taken by the election petitioner under Clause (i) of Section 100 (1)(d) of the Act, 1951 on the basis of the allegations as leveled in the election petition itself is not made out. He has alleged that three criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 188, 341 of the IPC wherein he has been held guilty and fines have been imposed upon him. Section 33-A of the Act, 1951 mandates for a candidate to disclose additional information with regard to pendency of any case against him where offence is punishable with imprisonment for two years or more and to disclose information with regard to those cases where a candidate has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more. In none of the cases registered against the respondent he has been sentenced as contemplated under Section 33-A of the Act, 1951. Only fines have been imposed upon him. Clause (ii) of Section 33-A (1) of the Act, 1951 does not apply and there is no mandatory requirement to disclose any fact not stipulated in Section 33-A(1). The maximum punishment awardable under Section 188 and 341 of the IPC is six months and one month respectively. Thus on the basis of the averments as made in the election petition itself this ground is not made out.

5. It is further submitted that the ground provided under Clause (iii) of Section 100 (1)(d) of the Act, 1951 has been raised by the election petitioner on the allegation that 158 postal ballots have been improperly rejected out rightly. In case these rejected postal ballots had been counted, the petitioner would have secured majority of them and would have emerged victorious. The postal ballots were rejected as invalid without any justifiable cause or reason in order to advance cause of respondent and that they have been declared invalid on account of non- affixation of seal of Attesting Officer on Form 13-A without appreciating Clause 15.14.7 of the instructions issued by the Election Commission. The election petitioner has failed to plead the material facts to substantiate these allegations. The allegations leveled and the material pleadings made in the election petition to substantiate those allegations clearly show that the petition is only on the basis of bald allegati