Election petitions must contain precise and material facts, especially concerning alleged corrupt practices, as mandated by Section 83 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

1. The order shall govern the disposal of I.A. No.3, which is an application under O.7 R.11 of C.P.C., wherein the respondent has challenged the tenability of the election petition and raised the preliminary objection.

2. The written statements though have been filed on 25.06.2014 prior to that, an application under O.7 R.11 of C.P.C. was preferred to challenge the maintainability of the petition. Subsequent there to by an order dated 25.04.2014, the Court had directed for hearing of the application under O.7 R.11 of C.P.C., pursuant there to, it has come up for hearing to adjudicate on maintainability of the petition as to whether cause of action arises for all the grounds pleaded in election petition.

3. Application under O.7 R.11 of C.P.C. is preferred by the respondent No.1, the returned candidate. Perusal of the election petition would show that initially 16 parties were added as a respondents, but subsequently, all the names have been deleted except respondent No.1. Though the respondents numbering upto 2 to 16 were deleted, the averments and the pleadings with respect to the said parties, still exits. This has led to complete contradiction and omissions of pleadings and submission led to complete confusion.

4. The challenge in the election petition is by the contesting candidate of Legislative Region No.48, Raipur Gramin Legislative Assembly, District Raipur, who contested the election under the Bhartiya Janta Party. The respondent No.1 is the returned candidate of the election held for the Region - 48 of Raipur Gramin Legislative Assembly. The voting took place on 19.11.2013 and result was declared on 08.12.2013 and the respondent was declared as a elected member of legislative assembly. The respondent secured vote of 70,774 while the petitioner secured votes numbering into 68,931.

5. Dr. N. K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aditya Tiwari, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit as under : -
i). The ground for declaring the election to be void finds place in S.100 of Representation of People Act, 1951 (herein after referred to as 'the Act of 1951'). It is stated that the provision of sub-S.1 (d) (iv) mandates that in order to declare a election void, the non - compliance is to be within the provisions of Constitution or "of this Act" or in Rules or Act made under "this Act". Therefore, would submit that in order to get a relief as has been pleaded and as alleged by the petitioner that the names of voter were inserted after the date of nomination, such ground would not be available as the word "this Act" necessarily refers to Act of 1951.
ii). He further made a reference to the Representation of People Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1950") and stated that one of the preamble of the Act is for preparation of electoral rolls manner of filing seats in council to be filed by the representatives and would submit that the preparation of electoral rolls is covered under Part - III of the Act of 1950.
iii). He further referred to S.21 of the Act of 1950 which is for preparation and revision of electo