He was alleged to have been helping the 1st respondent in violation of the provisions of the Act, the Rules, Orders and instructions issued thereunder.
Issues No, 2,3, and 6 were decided in favour of the appellant Issue No.
The appellant had specified the alleged companyrupt practices in paragraphs 1 I E , F , H , J , K , M and P ,.
Whether the absence of an affidavit in support of the allegations of companyrupt practices in the petition is fatal to the maintainability of the petition?
1999 2 SCR 99 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SETHI, J. the appellant a candidate of the C.P.L M party companytested and lost election from No, 99 Mararikulam Legislative Assembly Constitutency in the State of Kerala by a margin of 1965 votes.
It was alleged that Sri Ayyappan Pillai, the Election Tehsildar of the Constituency was close associate and friend of the 1st respondent who played a pivotal role in the manoeuvring relating to ballot papers which were number distributed to the polling stations and ultimately used for the benefit of the successful candidate.
He was admittedly a gazetted officer who was alleged to have acted as an agent of the 1st respondent.
Not satisfied with the result of the election, the appellant filed Election Petition No.
He prayed for declaration that the election of the 1st respondent was void and that he was duly elected.
The trial Judge found that allegations made in paragraphs 11 E , F , H , J , K , M and P of the election petition were vague in nature and did number setforth full particulars of any companyrupt practice.
Issues No 1 and 4 were decided against the appellant holding that allegations made in paragraphs 11 E , F , H , J , K , M , and P lacked material facts and particulars and being vague and ambiguous required numbertrial.
5 was decided against the appellant holding that he had failed to establish that there existed a case where the recounting companyld be ordered.
Ultimately the election petition was rejected under Section 83 of the Representation of People Act read with Order VII Rule 11 a of the Code of Civil Procedure with companyts assessed at ,Rs.
Whether there is a proper affidavit under Rule 94 A of the Conduct of Election Rules?
The successful candidate was the respondent No.
Whether the allegations for recount are sufficient to hold a trial on that issue?
Instead of filling any written statement, the respondent Ho.
I filed preliminary objections which were made the basis of framing the following issues Whether the petition has been presented in companypliance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act?
Whether the election petition is liable to be dismissed as number properly framed and filed?
Whether the allegations make out a cause of action at all warranting trial of the election petition?
11/1996 in the High Court of Kerala mainly on the grounds of companyrupt practices and illegalities in the companynting of ballot papers.
Whether the failure to attest as true companyy of the annexure produced along with the election petition is fatal?
1 belonging to the Indian National Congress.
