S.N.Hussain,J.

This election petition has been filed by Dr. Ram Prakash Mahto under the provision of Sections 80 and 80A of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) challenging the election of the sole respondent Tar Kishore Prasad who has been declared elected for 14^th Bihar Legislative Assembly from 142, Katihar Assembly Constituency for which election was held on 26.10.2005.

2. The admitted facts of the matter are that a notification was issued on 28.09.2005 calling for the voters of 142 Katihar Assembly Constituency to elect their representative of 14^th Bihar Legislative Assembly fixing 05.10.2005 as the last date for filing nomination within which period altogether 10 candidates, including the sole petitioner and the sole respondent, filed their nomination papers, out of which the petitioner was an official candidate of Rashtriya Janta Dal political party, whereas the sole respondent filed his nomination as an official candidate of Bhartiya Janta Party political party and after scrutiny on 06.10.2005, the nomination papers were found valid and were accepted and a list of validly nominated candidates was published by the Returning Officer, namely Sub- Divisional Officer, Katihar, whereafter election was held in various booths of the said constituency on 26.10.2005 and the votes were counted on 22.11.2005 and finally on the same date result was declared holding the sole respondent as the successful candidate.

3. The aforesaid election is under challenge in the instant election petition on various grounds. In reply to the claim of the election petitioner, the sole respondent filed his written statement on 05.09.2006. After completion of the pleadings following issues were framed by this court on 10.10.2006:-

(i) Whether the election petition as framed is maintainable?

(ii) Whether the election petition is fit to be dismissed summarily for non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Sections 81, 82 and 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and for not disclosing the complete cause of action under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

(iii) Whether the election of the sole respondent is void, illegal and is fit to be set aside?

(iv) Whether the refusal of the Presiding Officer of the concerned booths to allow the voters to exercise their franchise on the basis of alternative documents prescribed by the Election Commission has materially affected the election of the Assembly Constituency concerned?

(v) Whether the petitioner’s voters having not been given their voters Identity Card by the District Administration with malafide and oblique purposes, the entire purpose of the election was defeated, which affected the election of the Assembly Constituency concerned?

(vi) Whether refusal to act as per the instructions of the Election Commission of India with respect to the poll on booth nos.9 and 9A, the Returning Officer had failed to comply the instruction issued under Article 324(1) of the Constitution of India, which has materially affected it?

(vii) Whether the election of the sole respondent is otherwise bad in law?

Issue nos.(iv), (v) and (vi)

4. These three issues are taken up together for consideration as they are inter- related. The election petitioner has raised these issues claiming that the voters were not given their electoral photo identity cards (hereinafter referred to as ‘EPIC’ for the sake of brevity) by the District Administration by malafide and oblique purposes, whereas the Presiding Officer of the concerned booths refused to allow voters to exercise their franchise on the basis of alternative documents as prescribed by the Election Commission, which, according to the petitioner, materially affected the election of the Assembly Constituency and defeated the entire purpose of the election and hence the election of the sole respondent from the said constituency is clearly void and illegal and is fit to be set aside.

5. It may be stated in this