IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Election petition should contain a concise statement of material facts. What constitutes material facts would depend upon ground on which election of a returned candidate is challenged.
(2) Election petition cannot be allowed to be amended after long lapse of time.
(3) Election petition – Where there are more than two candidates in field, it is not possible to apply same ratio as could be applied when there are only two candidates.

ORDER :

V. Ramasubramanian, J.

Challenging the interim orders passed in two interlocutory applications, one seeking amendment of pleadings and the other for striking out prayer (c) in the main election petition, the election petitioner has come up with these Special Leave Petitions.

2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. In the elections held to the Karnataka State Legislative Assembly on 28.05.2018, the first respondent was declared elected from Constituency No. 154, namely Rajarajeshwari Nagar.

4. The petitioner herein challenged the election of the first respondent by way of an election petition in E.P.No.11 of 2018 before the High Court of Karnataka. The election petition was filed on 13.07.2018. After service of notice, the returned candidate who is the first respondent herein filed three interlocutory applications in I.A. Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of 2019, praying respectively for:-

(i) Striking out the pleadings in paragraphs 8-30;

(ii) Rejection of the election petition on the ground of lack of substratum; and

(iii) Striking out prayer (c) in the election petition.

5. The petitioner herein (the election petitioner) also filed two interlocutory applications in I.A. Nos. 1 & 4 of 2020, praying for:-

(i) Amendment of the election petition by incorporating additional pleadings; and

(ii) Leave to produce copies of 8 documents.

6. By a common order passed on 20.03.2020, the High Court

(i) partly allowed I.A.No. 1 of 2020 filed by the election Petitioner;

(ii) fully allowed I.A. No.4 of 2020 filed by the election petitioner ;

(iii) rejected I.A. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2019 filed by the first respondent; and

(iv) allowed I.A. No.4 of 2019 filed by the first respondent for striking out prayer (c) in the election petition.

7. Aggrieved by that portion of the order of the High Court:-

(i) Allowing I.A. No.4 of 2019 filed by the returned candidate namely the first respondent and striking out prayer (c) in the election petition; and

(ii) Partially disallowing I.A. No. 1 of 2020 filed by himself for introducing additional pleadings with reference to the substratum contemplated in section 101(b) of the Act,

the election petitioner has come up with the above Special Leave Petitions.

8. The order impugned in the Special Leave Petitions is dated 20.03.2020 but certain events that happened during the pendency of the election petition, have now changed the entire complexion of the game. These events are as follows:

(i) The first respondent herein along with 12 other elected members submitted their resignations from the membership of the house during the period from 01.07.2019 to 11.07.2019;

(ii) On the ground that the Speaker failed to take any decision on the resignation of those legislators including the first respondent herein, a few of them filed a writ petition in W.P.(C) No. 872 of 2019 in this Court. This Court passed an order on 11.07.2019 in the said writ petition directing the Speaker to take a decision qua the resignations and to place the decision before this Court;

(iii) In the meantime, petitions for disqualification were moved before the Speaker of the Assembly against those 13 legislators including the first respondent herein;

(iv) In view of the said development, this Court passed a couple of interim orders on 12.07.2019 and 17.07.2019;

(v) On 23.07.2019 a trust vote was taken up for consideration and the resigned members including the first respondent did not attend. Thereafter, the Speaker passed 5 independent orders on 25.07.2019 and 28.07.2019 on the various petitions for disqualification. By these orders, the Speaker rejected the resignation of the members and disqualified all of them till the end of the term of the 15th State legislative Assembly;

(vi) Challenging the said orders of the Speaker, 9 writ petitions came to be filed on the file of this Court, one of them being W.P.(C) No.998 of 2019. In the said writ petition, there were 6 petitioners, one among them being the first respondent herein. All the 9 writ petitions we