ORDER

01. Heard on I.A.No.9524/2019 , which is an application filed by the respondent Shankar Lalwani under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. read with Section 100 (2) Representation of People's Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred as the Act of 1951) for dismissal of the Election Petition.

02. The aforesaid application has been filed by the respondent alleging that the Election Petition is liable to be dismissed as it has been filed beyond the period of 45 days as prescribed under Section 81 of the Act of 1951. It is submitted that the result of the Parliamentary election of 2019 were declared on 23.5.2019;

whereas the election petition was presented before this Court on

8.7.2019, which is on 47th day. It is also submitted that there is non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 83 (1) (c) of the Act of 1951, as proper affidavit has not been filed in support of the Election Petition and in fact two affidavits have been filed which is not the requirement of the law and thus, on this account also, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

03. It is also alleged that there is non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 81(3) of the Act of 1951, as the identical copy of the petition has not been supplied to the respondent as the copy of the petition is not signed by the petitioner on each page and every page and it has not been attested as the true copy of the petition.

04. Another ground is non-joinder of the necessary party. It is alleged that the petition has been filed by the petitioner only on the ground of Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act 1951, which provides that an Election Petition can be filed if there is non-compliance of any provisions of the Constitution or of the Act of 1951 or any Rules or order made under the said Act; whereas in the petition, the petitioner has made allegations against the Returning Officer for not following the instructions issued by the Election Commission of India for mandatory counting and matching the results of VVPATS and CUs from randomly polling stations. And other allegations have also been levelled against the Returning Officer. In such circumstances, the Returning Officer is necessary and proper party for disposal of this petition and in his absence the petition deserves to be dismissed.

05. The respondent has also contended that no cause of action has accrued to the petitioner to file this election petition as the petition itself is vague, as the total margin of votes with which the respondent has won the election are 547754 votes and there is no pleadings in this regard as to how the alleged non-compliance of the Election Commission’s order could have materially affected the elections specially when the petitioner has alleged deliberate negligence against the Returning Officer without impleading him as a party. Thus, it is submitted that the election petition being without substance is liable to be dismissed at this stage only as the trial of the Election Petition before this Court would only lead to wastage valuable time of this Court.

06. Reply to the aforesaid application has been filed by the election petitioner-Pankaj Sanghvi, rebutting the grounds raised and the allegations levelled in the aforesaid application.

07. So far as the issue of delay in filing the election petition is concerned, Shri Abhinav Dhanodkar, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that the 45 days from the date of declaration of election would be on

08.07.2019; whereas the petition has been filed on 09.7.2019 as on

08.7.2019, there was Sunday and the petition was filed on the next working day i.e. on 09.7.2019, the Monday, thus, it is submitted that the petition was well within limitation.

08. In respect of the other grounds raised by the respondent are concerned, it is submitted that petitioner has pleaded all the relevant facts in the election petition in accordance with law and the