J U D G M E N T

[1] Heard Mr. H S. Paonam, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B.R. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, Mr. S. Chittaranjan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 and Mrs. L.

Ayangleima, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3.

[2] MC(El Petn.) No. 50 of 2022 and MC(El. Petn.) No. 138 of 2022 are applications filed under Order -VII Rule-11 of the Code of Civil [4]

Procedure, 1908 (CPC, 1908) and Section 86(i) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (RP Act, 1951) with the prayer for dismissing Election Petition No. 1 of 2022 on the ground that the election petition suffers from "absence of concise statement", "lacking immaterial particulars", "non- disclosure of a triable issue or cause of action", "non-compliance of mandatory requirements of law in preferring an election petition" as provided under section 81 and 83 of the RP Act, 1951 and Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.

As the facts and question of law raised in the present two applications are common, the same are being disposed of jointly by this common judgment.

[3] Mr. H S. Paonam, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant mainly raised the following three points in the present application:-

(i) Absence of concise statement of material facts and lacking full particulars of any corrupt practice;

(ii) Non-disclosure of a triable issue or cause of action;

(iii) Non-compliance of mandatory requirements of law in preferring an election petition.

[4] It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant that the petitioner did not disclosed the source of information upon which the allegations have been levelled in the petition and that the petition does not contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies and therefore it does not disclose a triable issue or cause of action and that even the material particulars are absent in the election [5]

petition. The learned senior counsel also submitted that the present election petition lacks concise statement of material facts and that specially when corrupt practice is alleged, the date and place of corrupt practice need to be specifically pleaded, which is absent in the election petition. It has also been submitted that the names of the persons committing corrupt practice, receiving benefits and gifts of such corrupt practice, the place, date and time of such act/commission are not at all pleaded. It has also been submitted that the complete reading of the election petition would show that the petitioner failed to plead the details of corrupt practice which can constitute a cause of action as contemplated by Section 100 of the RP Act and that the petitioner failed to give the material facts and other details of the alleged corrupt practice. The learned senior counsel submitted that the allegations relating to corrupt practice, as stated in various paragraphs of the election petition, even assuming but not admitting to be true, did not constitute any corrupt practice.

[5] It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the election petition lacks in material facts constituting the cause of action required under the Representation of People Act, 1951 and that the said election petition does not fulfil the mandatory requirements of law and accordingly the petition does not disclose a triable issue or cause of action. It has further been submitted that the so called specific allegation of corrupt practice as contained in the election petition do not meet the basic requirement, which can constitute the cause of action as required by law and that the material fact as to how the information came to the knowledge of the petitioner pertaining to undue influence/ corrupt practice is absolutely missing, [6]

whereas the same is preliminary requirement for maintainability of the petition. It has been submitted that the petition does not disclose