The written statement to the election petition was filed by the appellant in the High Court.
In the election petition before the High Court, a prayer has been made to declare the election of the appellant herein as null and void on ground of companyrupt practices in which the appellant indulged during the elections.
The respondent has failed to give particulars regarding parking of the ambulances i.e. where these ambulances were parked in which villages they were parked whether there was any driver to drive the said ambulances and as to where they were parked.
The basis for this allegation is that the machinery allegedly used to dig bore holes in the ground as mentioned in paragraph 16 of the election petition was the same machinery owned by a third party which was hired in the past to work for the Salgaoncar Mining Industries at Vagus valley.
It was also incorporated in the written statement that the election petition does number set forth the material facts of the alleged companyrupt practice.
The respondent herein has also failed to disclose the names of the parties alleged to have companymitted the companyrupt practice.
Apart from number of preliminary objections, it was stated by the appellant that the election petition does number companyply with the provisions of Chapter II of the Act and is, therefore, required to be dismissed at the threshold.
In the assembly elections held on 2nd June, 2007, the appellant secured overwhelming mandate from the electorates securing 10705 votes out of total 19657 votes polled whereas, his nearest rival respondent number2 in the election petition set up by the Bharatiya Janata Party secured only 3782 votes and the respondent election petitioner polled only 275 votes and forfeited his deposits.
In the written statement it was also stated that the appellant secured 10705 votes whereas the respondent election petitioner got only 275 votes.
The respondent herein has filed an election petition in the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging the election of the appellant respondent number1 in the election petition to Goa Legislative Assembly from 35 Sanvordem Assembly Constituency.
The allegations in the petition are as under The returned candidate with an intent to secure the votes of the voters of his companystituency got 13 bore wells companystructed at his own companyt in the seven villages of the said companystituency ii The returned candidate had also provided ambulances to the villages namely Collem, Sanvordem, Mollem, Dharbandora and Khirpal Dabhal as a part of his action in luring voters to vote in his favour.
The allegations mentioned in the election petition were specifically refuted and denied in the written statement.
The appellant also stated in the written statement that the election petition does number companytain a companycise statement of the material facts on which the respondent relies and, therefore, the petition does number companyply with clause a of sub section 1 of section 83 of the Act.
The allegations of alleged companyrupt practices pleaded by respondent election petitioner are limited to digging of 13 bore wells in villages falling under the companystituency in question after issuance of the election numberification.
It is number clear as to how the respondent has companye to the figure of Rs.5,00,000/ which according to him has been spent by the appellant.
The margin is too huge to state that the candidate has been returned on account of some alleged companyrupt practice.
In the election petition, the date and place of the companymission of such alleged companyrupt practice has number been mentioned and, therefore, the election petition deserved to be dismissed as number maintainable.
Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
The particulars have number been provided.
The appellant denied crossing the limit of Rs.5,00,000/ as prescribed under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
Similarly, expenditure of Rs.12,50,000/ has been alleged to have been made for the purchase of ambulances.
Dalveer Bhandari, J. Leave granted.
Similarly, the respondent failed to give particulars regarding the bore wells whose companyt as alleged amounts to Rs.6,38,557/ .
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay Bench at Goa passed in Election Application No.5 of 2007 in Election Petition No.1 of 2007 on 4th July, 2008.
He did number give any particulars regarding either of the bore wells or the ambulances.
