2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 5959

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV
CAPT R TAMIL SELVAN – Appellant
Versus
GANESH KUMAR YADAV – Respondent
AEP/10/2025

Election petition must contain concise material facts showing how non-compliance materially affected the result; vague allegations without particulars lead to dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Headnote:(A) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 83(1)(a), 100(1)(d)(iv), 125A - Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 - Rule 4A, Form 26 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Election petition must contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies; omission of a single material fact leads to incomplete cause of action and renders the petition liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. (Paras 13, 14, 31)

(B) Election Law - Grounds for declaring election void under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) - The sine qua non for declaring an election void is that the result of the election, insofar as it concerns the returned candidate, has been materially affected by non-compliance with the Constitution, the Act or Rules. Mere non-disclosure or breach does not ipso facto invalidate the election; the petitioner must plead and prove that the result was materially affected. (Paras 16, 28, 30, 31)

(C) Nomination - Scrutiny by Returning Officer under Section 36 - Acceptance of nomination is final unless set aside under Section 100. Non-disclosure in Form 26 may attract penalty under Section 125A but does not automatically constitute a defect of substantial character under Section 36(4) or a ground under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) without pleading material effect. (Paras 22, 23, 27, 28)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the election of the first respondent from a constituency on three grounds: non-disclosure of an immovable asset acquired through a housing loan of Rs.90 lakhs; non-disclosure of an arbitration award of Rs.2,72,60,559/- in favour of Central Railways (which had been stayed by the High Court); and non-disclosure of liabilities under Column 10(i) of Form 26. The first respondent filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking dismissal of the election petition for lack of material facts. The High Court examined whether the petition contained a concise statement of material facts as required under Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act.

Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the election petition was vague and generic, lacking specific material facts such as dates, places, incidents, and details to demonstrate how the alleged non-disclosures materially affected the result of the election. The alleged housing loan was actually taken by the respondent’s daughter, and the arbitration award had been stayed, making it not a crystallized liability. The Returning Officer had accepted the nomination after scrutiny without any objection. The petition failed to disclose any cause of action under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) and was therefore liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Issues: 1. Whether the election petition contained a concise statement of material facts as mandated by Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act? 2. Whether the alleged non-disclosures in Form 26 constituted a ground for declaring the election void under Section 100(1)(d)(iv)? 3. Whether the election petition disclosed a cause of action or was liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC?

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that for an election petition to be maintainable, it must strictly comply with Section 83(1)(a) by setting out a concise statement of material facts that, if proved, would establish that the result of the election was materially affected by the alleged non-compliance. Mere vague allegations without particulars do not constitute a cause of action. Non-disclosure of liabilities that are not crystallized or are stayed by a court does not amount to a substantial defect. The Returning Officer’s acceptance of the nomination after scrutiny creates a presumption of validity, which can only be displaced by specific pleadings and proof of material effect. Result : Application No.10 of 2025 allowed; Election Petition No.36 of 2025 rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and dismissed with no costs.