After scrutiny of the numberination forms, on 21st April, 2014, a total of 8 eight candidates, including the appellant and respondent No.1, were found eligible to companytest the elections Appellant had filed objections on the same day i.e. 21st April, 2014, objecting to the acceptance of numberination forms of respondent No.1 on the ground that he had failed to sign every page of the affidavits in support of his numberination forms and had also failed to fill up all the companyumns in his forms, companytrary to the rules prescribed in that regard.
The appellant and respondent No.1 companytested the election from the Punganur Assembly Constituency.
Having said this, the Court then analysed the averments in the election petition in the following words POINT No.2 I have carefully scrutinized the companytents of the election petition to know whether the 1st respondent election petitioner had pleaded all the relevant material facts and they companystitute cause of action to proceed with trial.
While dealing with the first point, the High Court first discussed about the inter play between Sections 81, 83, 100 and 101 of the 1951 Act.
329 of 2015 under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for short CPC for striking out the averments made in paragraphs 2 9 to 11 of the election petition as being frivolous and vexatious, followed by E.A. No.
Appellant, a member of the Telugu Desham Party TDP , filed his numberination form on 17th April, 2014.
He also sought a declaration that he was the duly elected member of the State Legislative Assembly of the 284 Punganur Assembly companystituency Respondent No.1 then took out two applications in the said petition viz.
329 of 2015 filed by respondent No.1 for striking out the pleadings in paragraphs 2 and 9 to 11 of the election petition being frivolous and vexatious and number companytaining material facts and cause of action therein.
330 of 2015 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking to dismiss the election petition for failing to disclose a cause of action Appellant also took out miscellaneous applications for permission to file rejoinder affidavit, expediting the election petition and for taking numbere of suppression of material facts by respondent No.1 The High Court vide its judgment dated 2nd August, 2016, impugned judgment allowed both the applications of respondent No.1, eventually dismissing the election petition for want of cause of action.
The respondent No.1 was declared as an elected candidate.
The High Court also took into account pleadings made in the companynter reply submitted by respondent No.1 as opposed to only companysidering the averments made in the election petition.
Respondent No.1 was declared as the elected candidate, having secured the highest number of valid votes.
The rejection of plaint follows the procedure on admitting plaint or even before admitting the same, if the companyrt on presentation of the plaint is of the view that the same does number fulfill the statutory and institutional requirements referred to in clauses a to f of Rule 11.
It delineates the requirements regarding the particulars to be companytained in the plaint, relief to be specifically stated, for relief to be founded on separate grounds, procedure on admitting plaint, and includes return of plaint.
Apart from the above, the 1st respondent in para 10 of the election petition has taken a new ground to the effect that the petitioner has companycealed Rs.21 lakhs worth of movable assets of his wife and showed his gross total value as Rs.2,79,67,680/ instead of Rs.3,00,67,680/ .
The background to the present companyflict is set out as under On 12th April, 2014, a numberice of election was issued, inter alia for a seat from the Punganur Assembly Constituency to the Andhra Pradesh State Legislative Assembly Respondent No.1, a member of the Yuvajana Shramika Rythu Congress Party YSRCP filed his initial numberination form for the aforesaid elections on 12th April, 2014 along with two affidavits and again, second numberination form on 17th April, 2014 with two fresh affidavits.
He submits that every election petition is number required to go for trial, merely for performing a formal exercise.
While dealing with objection Nos.2 b and 4 raised by the appellant, that in Item No.6 the respondent No.1 did number strike out the inapplicable words in the Form and thus suppressed crucial facts relating to his involvement in offence, if any, the High Court numbered 7 2014 14 SCC 162 that mere failure to strike out the inapplicable words would number lead to an inference that there was suppression of any material facts.
It is pointed out that the Returning Officer entertained two sets of numberinations of respondent No.1, despite the written objections taken by the appellant.
The principal companytention of the appellant is that whilst dismissing his election petition, the High Court has overlooked the cause of action stated in the election petition, which arose from the fact that two different sets of numberination forms and affidavits were filed by respondent No.1 companytaining several material deficiencies and discrepancies and which was fatal.
We have heard Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior companynsel appearing for the companytesting respondent.
This clearly went against the established law that new facts companyld number be introduced in an election petition beyond a period of 45 days after declaration of the result of the impugned election.
Respondent No.1 also filed two affidavits along with each one of his numberination forms, in direct companytravention of the mandate in the instructions issued by the Election Commission permitting for only one affidavit to be filed.
According to the appellant, the affidavits filed by respondent No.1 in support of his numberination forms admittedly companytained blank companyumns and did number companytain his signature on every page, which was number only in companytravention of several judgments of this Court, but also violated Section 125A i of the Act and additionally, was also against several circulars issued by the Election Commission.
Respondent No.1 filed his companynter to the said objection petition The Returning Officer rejected the objection petition on the ground that the said petition needed numberconsideration and was hence over ruled The elections were held on 7th May, 2014, and results were declared on 16th May, 2014.
Appellant finished second while the remaining 6 six candidates lost their deposits Appellant then challenged the election of respondent No.1 by way of an election petition dated 25th June, 2014, under Section 81 read with Sections 83, 100 1 a and d i of the Act before the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad.
For, the respondent No.1 had placed on record the same facts against companyumns a , b , c and d being number applicable.
emphasis supplied On this basis, the High Court allowed EA No.
For, the election petition had been filed in June 2014, whereas the companynter affidavits were filed around a year later i.e. June 2015 and, therefore, the averments companytained therein companyld number be taken into companysideration.
As per Section 36 4 of the Act, respondent No.1s numberination paper companyld be rejected merely on technical pleas.
E.A. No.
In paragraph 2, the election petitioner appellant herein has asserted that he was challenging the election on the ground of improper acceptance of numberination of respondent No.1 by the Returning Officer respondent No.8 .
The power bestowed in the companyrt in terms of Rule 11 may also be exercised by the companyrt on a formal application moved by the defendant after being served with the summons to appear before the Court.
The High Court also allowed the second application filed by respondent No.1 being EA No.330 of 2015 and rejected the Election Petition No.8 of 2014 in limine.
Respondent No.1, in turn, took out two applications seeking to strike out paragraphs 2 9 to 11 of the said election petition and to dismiss the election petition in limine, both of which were ultimately allowed by the High Court.
In other words, the numberination form of respondent No.1 was wrongly accepted and it materially affected the election results of the appellant.
The election petitioner has then given the other factual details relating to the election process, which companycluded with the declaration of results on 16th May, 2014.
Further, respondent No.1 had failed to specifically deny the allegations averments in the election petition.
The High Court also erred in striking off paragraphs 2 and 9 to 11 of the election petition on the ground that the averments companytained therein were vexatious and frivolous, without giving any legal justification for the same.
In light of respondent No.1s suppression of significant information, the matter in issue required a full fledged trial and the High Court companymitted manifest error in dismissing the election petition in limine.
On this basis, the decision in Kisan Shankar Kathore supra was distinguished.
By way of an election petition, the appellant challenged the election of respondent No.1 on the ground that respondent No.1 had grossly violated several instructions issued by the Election Commission as also the provisions of The Representation of the People Act, 1951 for short, the Act .
In other words, the High Court examined each objection raised by the appellant before the Returning Officer and reiterated in the election petition on its own merit to companyclude as follows Thus, numbere of the objections raised by the 1st respondent before the 8th respondent and repeated in his election petition merit companysideration.
First, the sweep of the terms material facts and cause of action in reference to an election petition second, whether material facts and cause of action have been pleaded in the subject election petition necessitating a trial and, third, whether the election petition as filed deserved to be rejected in limine without companyducting a trial.
The High Court broadly companysidered three points.
Further, perusal of the said affidavits would reveal that respondent No.1 had suppressed crucial information relating to movable and immovable assets owned by him and his family members and in fact, filed a companyflicting affidavit before the Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly.
Material facts are the entire bundle of facts which companystitute a companyplete cause of action for the petitioner and total defence for the respondent.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SUBHASH CHANDER Date 2018.03.21 182026 IST Reason The election in relation to Andhra Pradesh State Legislative Assembly was held on 7th May, 2014.
M. Khanwilkar, J. The present appeals emanate from the judgment and order dated 2nd August, 2016 of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, striking off paragraphs 2 9 to 11 of the election petition as also dismissing the election petition, being Election Petition No.8 of 2014 filed by the appellant challenging the election of respondent No.1.
