Election petitions must strictly adhere to statutory provisions as alleged corrupt practices must be substantiated with clear material facts, or they are subject to dismissal.

1. This order shall govern the disposal of application under O.7 R.11 of C.P.C., filed on 21.03.2014 wherein the Respondent No. 1 has challenged the tenability of the election petition. Another application was moved under O.7 R.11 on 09.03.2014 which is not pressed by the respondent.

2. The written statement in this election petition has been filed on 08.5.2014. Prior to that an application under O.7 R.11 of CPC was preferred to challenge the maintainability of the petition. The Instant I.A.No.1/2014 is under O.7 R.11 of CPC filed by Respondent No.1, the returned candidate, who contested the election for the Chhattisgarh State Legislative Assembly held in the year 2013 from constituency No.30 Bilaspur as a candidate of Bharatiya Janta Party.

3. Dr. N. K. Shukla, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 submits that primary ground of challenge in this election petition is that the voters list which was earlier utilized was erroneous, therefore, it resulted to cause defeat of the petitioner. It is contended that such ground cannot be made a subject matter to set aside the election of Respondent No. 1 under the Representation of People Act, 1951 (For short "R.P. Act 1951"). It is stated that since the pleadings do not constitute a cause of action triable under the Act 1951 as such the petition is not tenable. It is further submitted that since the entire cause of action is based on defective voters list, the same cannot be subject of cause of action in the election petition as the Court cannot probe into the matters governed by Representation of People's Act 1950 and consequently, the election cannot be declared void. Further submissions of counsel for respondent No.1 are as follows:
(i) that the grounds to set aside the election is enumerated in S.100 of the R.P. Act, 1951 and the provision of sub-section (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 any Rules made under the Act. It is, therefore, submitted that the grounds of defective voters list is the subject which is covered under the Act of 1950 cannot be made a ground to challenge the election under the Act of 1951.
(ii) The counsel further made a reference to the Representation of People Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1950") and contended that the preamble of the Act is for preparation of electoral rolls, manner of filing seats in council to be filed by the representatives which 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 electoral rolls. S.22 is for correction of entries in electoral rolls. S.23 is for inclusion of names in electoral rolls and S.24 is for appeals. Therefore, he submits that the entire procedure for inclusion and exclusion of names are covered by the Act of 1950, which is a Code in itself, so the election petition would not lie on the ground of erro