An Election Petition must contain precise material facts and particulars; vague allegations do not establish a cause of action under the Representation of the People Act.

BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

1. The instant Appeal filed by the appellant - Karim Uddin Barbhuiya (Original Respondent No. 1) is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 26.04.2023 passed by the Gauhati High Court at Guwahati in I.A. (Civil) No. 1278 of 2021 in Election Petition No. 01 of 2021, whereby the High Court has dismissed the said IA filed by the present appellant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the Election Petition filed by the respondent No. 1 - Aminul Haque Laskar (Original Election Petitioner).

Digitally signed by Nirmala Negi Date: 2024.04.08 16:36:54 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2. A brief conspectus of relevant facts may be stated as under: (i) On 05.03.2021, General Election to the Legislative Assembly of Assam was notified by the Election Commission of India, whereunder the last date for filing of nomination papers was 12.03.2021. (ii) On 11.03.2021, the appellant filed his nomination papers as a candidate of All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF) along with the Declaration, by way of an affidavit in Form-26 of The Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Said Rules). The last date for scrutiny of nomination papers was 15.03.2021. (iii) On 01.04.2021, the election for the Legislative Assembly Constituency no. 10, Sonai was concluded and the appellant secured 71,937 votes out of total votes polled, while the respondent no. 1

herein secured 52,283 votes in his favour.

(iv) On 04.06.2021, the respondent no. 1 (Election Petitioner) filed the Election Petition being no. 01 of 2021 before the High Court under Section 100(1)(b) and Section 100(1)(d)(i) of The Representation of the People’s Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the RP Act) questioning the election of the appellant, mainly making four allegations - (a) false declaration of educational qualification of B.A. (b) suppression of the educational qualification of Diploma in Engineering (c) suppression of bank loan details of M/s. Allied Concern and (d) suppression of un-liquidated provident fund dues.

(v) On 24.06.2021, the High Court issued notice in the said Election Petition.

(vi) On 23.08.2021, the appellant herein (Original Respondent No.1- Returned Candidate) filed an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC read with Section 86 of the RP Act for rejection of the Election Petition, which was registered as I.A (Civil) No. 1278 of 2021 in the said Election Petition.

(vii) On 26.04.2023, the High Court passed the impugned judgment dismissing the said I.A. filed by the appellant. Hence, the present Appeal has been filed.

3. The Appeal has been contested by the respondent no. 1 and the respondent no. 13 by filing their respective counter affidavits. 4. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Kapil Sibal for the appellant and Mr. Jaideep Gupta for the respondent no.1 at length. 5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kapil Sibal appearing for the appellant vehemently submitted that the respondent no. 1 has sought to upset the election results by filing the baseless, motivated and malafide election petition, based on mere bald allegations that the information disclosed in Form No. 26 filed by the appellant along with his nomination form was inaccurate. None of the allegations made in the Election Petition is supported by either primary documents or reliable source of information. The pleadings in the Election Petition are not the averments of material facts but are facts based speculation and do not disclose any triable issue. He further submitted that the Election Petition does not disclose a complete cause of action, nor does it contain all “material facts” as required under Section 83 (1)(a) and also does not plead “full particulars” of the alleged corrupt practice of undue influence, as required under Section 81 (1)(b) of the RP Act.

6. Mr. Sibal taking us to the particulars disclosed by the appellant in Form No. 26 submitted that there was neither suppression of educational qualification nor