An election petition may be dismissed summons under CPC if it fails to disclose a triable cause of action; non-disclosure of material liabilities can render an election void under the Representation of the People Act.

1. This order shall govern the disposal of I. A. No. 2, application under O.7 R.14 (sic 11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') raising preliminary objection that Election Petition filed by the petitioner does not disclose triable and reasonable cause of action for the grounds stated in the election petition and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed summarily invoking jurisdiction under O.7 R.11 of the CPC.

2. Election petitioner has filed this Election petition under S.80A read with S.100 and S.101 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the RP Act, 1951") for declaring the election of respondent No. 1, from 3 Bainkunthpur Legislative Constituency as illegal and void under S.98(b) of the RP Act, 1951 mainly on the following grounds: -
Firstly : That the nomination of returned candidate was improperly accepted by the Returning Officer, materially affecting the result of returned candidate which is ground under S.100(1)(d)(i) of the RP Act, 1951 to declare the election void.
Secondly: The failure of the respondent No. 1 / returned candidate to disclose the governmental liability of Rs. 45,120/- towards electricity dues of CSPDCL would interfere with the freedom of choice of the voter and it will fall under the category of "undue influence" within the meaning of S.123(2) of the Act, 1951 and the failure to disclose full and complete information is an undue influence on the voters and it is a "corrupt practice" rendering the election liable to be set aside, which is a ground under S.100 (1)(b) of the RP Act, 1951 to declare the election void.

3. Upon service of summons of the election petition, respondent No.1 / returned candidate without filing written statement straightway filed application under O.7 R.14(sic 11) of the CPC stating inter alia that election petition as framed and filed is not maintainable in law as the nonpayment of the electricity dues is not a material lapse leading to rejection of nomination paper; and further pleaded that the election petitioner has failed to plead that the alleged improper acceptance of the nomination paper, the result of the respondent No.1 / returned candidate has been materially affected as required under S.100 (1)(d)(i) of the RP Act, 1951; secondly that the non - disclosure of the liability towards electricity dues would not amount to undue influence by no stretch of imagination and, as such, it would not be corrupt practice within the meaning of S.123(2) of the RP Act, 1951. He would also submit that affidavit filed in support of corrupt practice is also not in accordance with the prescribed proforma laid down by R.94 - A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and, as such, the election petition is liable to be dismissed for want of triable cause of action.

4. Election petitioner has filed reply opposing to the said application stating inter alia that technical objections taken by the returned candidate / respondent No.1 on merits of the case, without filing the written statement is not maintainable in law as S.86 of RP Act, 1951 doesn't include S.83 of RP Act, 1951 and as such the application is liable to be rejected as not maintainable in law.

5. Shri B. P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 / returned candidate while s