Election petitions must contain precise allegations of corrupt practices, failing which they may be dismissed.

ORDER : 

VISHAL DHAGAT, J.

1. Petitioner has filed this election petition under Section 80 and 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 .

2. Respondent has filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. for dismissal of election petition in limine.

3. Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that only allegations made against respondent is in para 6 and 7 of election petition. It has been stated that battery of EVM Machine was showing charging at 99% and few EVM Machines battery were showing charging at 80%. It is pleaded that after full day of running, EVM Machine could not have battery of 99%. It is also argued that respondent in connivance with State Machinery has access to the battery. It is submitted that tampering has been done with EVM Machines. Corrupt practice was adopted by respondent. On said ground, petitioner has filed this election petition.

4. It is submitted by counsel appearing for respondent that material particulars has not been given. Petitioner is required to plead particulars as mentioned in Section 83 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 . Full material particulars of corrupt practices has not been mentioned. Only general allegations are made. Petition is defective and same deserves to be dismissed.

5. Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that election petition can be dismissed if there is non-compliance of Section 81 , 82 and 117. It is submitted that power of dismissal of petition under Section 86 is given only for non-compliance of Section 81 , 82 and 117 and Section 83 is not included in Section 86 , therefore, election petition cannot be dismissed on ground that full material particulars of any corrupt practice has not been pleaded. It is submitted that batteries of EVM Machine cannot be charged during election process. EVM Machines are sealed and no one could have access to EVM Machine component or battery, which shows that corrupt practices has been adopted by respondent. In these circumstances, application filed by respondent be dismissed.

6. Heard the counsel for the parties.

7. On going through the pleadings which has been made in election petition, it is found that no particular allegations of corrupt practice is made against any particular person, who was having access to EVM Machine. During course of argument, it is argued that entire State Machinery was in connivance with respondent. Allegations are general and particulars of corrupt practices are missing in pleadings. It is orally argued that EVM Machines are sealed and no one has assessed to it, but however no such pleadings has been made in the election petition.

8. On going through provision of Sections 81 , 82, 83, 86, 100 and 101 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, it is found that election petition is to be presented in accordance with Section 81 . Grounds specified in sub-section (1) of Section 100 and Section 101 is to be mentioned at the time of presentation of petition. Section 81 , 86, 100 and 101 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 is quoted as under:-

"81. Presentation of petitions.—(1) An election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in 8 [sub-section (1)] of section 100 and section 101 to the [High Court] by any candidate at such election or any elector [within forty-five days from, but not earlier than the date of election of the returned candidate or if there are more than one returned candidate at the election and the dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates].

[86. Trial of election petitions.—(1) The High Court shall dismiss an election petition w