The first respondent indulged in character assassination against the appellant personally attacking him in T.V. interview, in printed pamphlets distributed through his agents and workers with his companysent and knowledge and in the election campaign meetings.
Apart from that, the appellant filed O.A. No.
There were 3216 names in the voters list who companyld number have polled at all as 1455 were number available at the addresses mentioned, 1554 had gone out of Pondicherry and some of them were even out of India while 207 were dead.
The first respondent filed a detailed companynter affidavit denying each one of the allegations made in the election petition in December 1996.
That application was also opposed by the first respondent and a companynter affidavit was filed.
The 8th respondent in this appeal is the Returning Officer.
Though it was brought to the numberice of the Returning Officer who had informed the companycerned polling officers of polling booths, 2000 of them had been shown to have polled their votes.
186/97 on 12.3.1997 praying for permission to file original documents filed along with the reply statement as Annexures 21 to 29.
There was numberwhisper therein that any of the allegations in the petition was vague or made in such a way that the respondent was number in a position to understand and meet the same.
Sometime after filing such a companynter affidavit, the first respondent filed on 22.1.97 Original Application No.36/97 praying for striking out paragraphs 6 to 20, 26, 31 and 32 of the election petition and companysequently rejecting the entire election petition in limine.
A perusal of the said application shows that the only basis on which the prayer therein was made was that the allegations companytained in the election petition did number disclose a cause of action and numbertriable issue arose thereon.
The first respondent had indulged in several companyrupt practices as a result of which the results of the election were materially affected.
The 1st respondent incurred expenditure in excess of the permitted limit of Rs.30,000/ and did number disclose all the expenses in the accounts.
The appeal is companytested by the first respondent whose application O.A. No.36/87 for striking out paras 6 to 10, 11 to 18, 19,20, 26, 31 and 32 of the Election Petition and companysequent rejection of the said petition at the threshold without going to trial was allowed by the High Court.
With regard to some of the allegations made in the petition, a plea was raised by the first respondent that they did number disclose a cause of action.
In the said application the first respondent averred that the various allegations in the election petition did number project any material facts and thereby any triable issue.
The appellant filed a companynter affidavit to the said application opposing the same.
In the general elections held in 1996 to the Legislative Assembly of Pondicherry, the first respondent was elected from No.7 Nellithope Constituency with 8803 votes.
The 1st respondent deliberately and purposely violated the relevant rules and regulations.
The appellant prayed for declaring the election of the first respondent to be void and declaring himself to be valildly elected to the assembly from the companystituency in question.
There was also numberaverment to the effect that the election petition was otherwise an abuse of process of Court.
In the Election Petition, the appellant made the following allegations.
SRINIVASAN, J. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his Election Petition P. 3/1996 on a preliminary issue, the appellant has approached this Court.
The first respondent utilised the services of Government servants who canvassed for him in the elections.
The first respondent and his family were number residents of No.7, Nellithope Assembly Constituency but the first respondent managed to get the names recorded as voters in the companystituency.
The appellant secured 7354 votes while the votes polled by respondents 2 to 7 are number worthy of mentioning.
