Election petitions must provide clear allegations and credible evidence for corrupt practices; vague claims result in dismissal.

1. This election petition is concerned with the election held in respect of Legislative Assembly Area No.83 of Kondagaon constituency wherein the voting took place on 11.11.2013 and the result of the election was declared on 08.12.2013 and the respondent Mohanlal Markam was declared as returned candidate. The following is the position of votes secured by the candidates :

2. The instant petition is filed by a voter Prakash Rao though he has not contested the election. The petitioner mainly claimed relief to declare the election of respondent Mohanlal Markam from Constituency Segment No.83 Kondagaon, for the Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly Election 2013 as illegal and void as per S.98(b) of the Representation of the People's Act, 1951. It is further prayed to hold that the returned candidate has committed corrupt practice at the election by exerting undue influence on the electors as prescribed u/s 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by way of filing false affidavit with his nomination form as per S.99 of the Representation of the People's Act, 1951.

3. (i) Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Prafull Bharat would submit that as per S.100(d)(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 , the nomination paper of respondent No.1 was improperly accepted thereby it would give right to the petitioner to challenge the election u/s 123(a)(ii) as respondent No.1 has not disclosed the true facts in his affidavit that he has married twice despite the first wife was alive. Therefore, such non - disclosure has caused interference with free exercise of electoral right of the petitioner as a voter if those facts were made known to people, many of people may not have voted to elect the respondent as winning candidate. It is further contended that respondent no.1 was holding the office of profit when the nomination was filed by him, thereby respondent No.1 has given the false affidavit.

(ii) Learned counsel would further submit that respondent no.1 has concealed the material information regarding his second marriage in all 5 affidavits and concealed the facts. Referring to Ex.D - 3 it is stated that the document shows the date to be 24.10.2013 and in the column, with respect to his description for livelihood, it is written as Senior Agency Manager, S.B.I., Life (retired) whereas in the same document at clause 9(a) about the source of income, it is stated that the salary is from SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. Further referring to the column of document, it is stated that the wife is shown as Lalita and Maina Markam is shown as dependent though Maina Markam is the wife, thereby respondent No.1 has not disclosed that he has two wives. Referring to the statement of P.W.4 Vijay Kumar Dhurve it is stated that one nomination form was deposited on 22.10.2013 and the rest of 3 nomination forms were deposited on 23.10.2013 whereas Ex.D - 3 is shown to be submitted on 24.10.2013, therefore, it was contended that the same document is fabricated.

(iii) It is further stated that according to such statement of Election Officer at para 14 the only date of nomination is shown as 23.10.2013. Referring to the document Ex.D - 3, it is submitted that though such nominations were shown to be submitted on 24.10.2013 but actually no submission was made. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the returned candidate has given the wrong information which frustrates the principles laid down in 2002 (5) SCC 294 - Union