IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT

CUTTACK

I.A. No.31 of 2025

(Arising out of ELPET No.20 of 2024)

Kanak Vardhan Singh …. Petitioner/Respondent

Deo

-versus-

Saroj Kumar Meher …. Opposite Party/

Petitioner

Appeared in this case:-

For Petitioner / : Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate and Respondent Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Advocate For Opposite Party / : Mr. G. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate Petitioner assisted by Ms. S. Srivastava,

Advocate CORAM:

JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing : 10.11.2025 / date of order : 28.11.2025

A.C. Behera, J. This Interlocutory Application under Order-7,

Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 has been filed by the respondent (returned candidate) in Election Petition No.20 of 2024 against the election petitioner praying for rejection of the Election Petition No.20 of 2024 filed by the election petitioner on the ground that, though allegations of corrupt practices have been alleged against the respondent in the

election petition, but, the election petition is not supported with its statutory requirement, i.e., an affidavit in Form No.25, which was required according to Sub-section(1) of Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 read with Section 94-A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961.

In addition to that, the election petitioner has not disclosed/reflected the particulars of the pending criminal cases against the respondent and the particulars of the assets of the respondent, to which, the respondent should have disclosed in the required Form at the time of filing of his nominations before the Election Officer, for which, on the ground of detailed non-disclosure of the same, the election petition of the election petitioner is liable to be rejected.

To which, the election petitioner objected by filing his show-cause stating therein that, his election petition is in conformity with the provisions of Sections 81, 82, 83, 84 and 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and The Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. For which, the election petition cannot be rejected at its threshold under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908.

The further objection of the election petitioner that, in the Election Petition vide Election Petition No.20 of 2024, he(election petitioner) has prayed for declaration of the result of the election of the returned candidate(respondent) as void on the ground of improperly/illegally acceptance of his nomination papers and the affidavits submitted with the same. There is no allegation in the election petition about the commission of any corrupt practice against the respondent(returned candidate). For which, the election petition of the election petitioner can never be rejected on the grounds stated in the petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. of the respondent(returned candidate).

2. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the respondent(returned candidate) and the learned senior counsel for the election petitioner.

For the rejection of the election petition of the election petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent(returned candidate) relied upon the following decisions:-

i) AIR 2024 SC (Civil)-1336; Karim Uddin Barbhuiya vrs.

Aminul Haque Laskar and others (ii) AIR 2023 SC-2366; Kanimozhi Karunanidhi vrs. A.

Santhana Kumar and others (iii) AIR 1976 SC-744; Udhav Singh vrs, Madhav Rao Scindia (iv) AIR 1969 SC-1201; Samant N. Balkrishna, etc. vrs. George Fernandez and others, etc.

(v) AIR 1987 SC-1577; Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal vrs.

Shri Rajiv Gandhi (vi) SLA(C) No.12491 of 2025 Judgment dated 22.08.2025(Tankadhar Tripathy vrs. Dipali Das)

3. The respondent(returned candidate) has filed this Interlocutory Application for rejection of the election petition of election petitioner on the ground of non-compliances of the provisions of Section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Rule-94-A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 for non-filing of the required Form No.25 with the election petition of the election petitioner.

4. The law relating to the nature of consideration