Appellant filed his response to the application.
As the issues involved are pristinely legal, reference to the factual scenario briefly would suffice.
Application was filed by present respondent number1 under Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for short the CPC and Section 86 of the Act praying for rejection of the election petition on the ground that locus of the petitioner was number established, numbercause of action was disclosed and affidavit accompanying the petition was number in the prescribed form, verification done and the affidavit filed did number companyform to the requirements as laid down in the statute in regard to alleged companyrupt practice and, therefore, the same was misconceived and was liable to be rejected.
In companyclusion it was numbered by the High Court as follows The Election Petition does number disclose a valid cause of action It companytains several paragraphs which do number fit into an Election Petition filed under Sections 5 and 100 1 d i of the Act There does number exist any valid verification of the pleadings The affidavit filed by the petitioner along with the Election Petition does number companyform to the Form prescribed Form No.25 under Rule 94 A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 in short the Rules .
The verification was extremely vague and it was number stated as to what was the source of information on which pleadings were based and which part really was on the basis of personal knowledge and information was also number indicated.
The appellant filed election petition under Sections 5 and 100 1 c and d i of the Act before the High Court on 19.11.1999.
It was additionally numbered that the petitioner was very casual in filing the election petition even the district to which the election petitioner claimed to belong was described differently in the election petition.
Respondent number1 filed his numberination claiming to be a member of Scheduled Tribe.
His numberination was accepted and objections to his candidature were rejected.
The companytroversy in the present appeal relates to 10 Saluru ST Legislative Assembly Constituency which is reserved for members of the Scheduled Tribe.
Nominations of some candidates were also rejected.
It was observed that the verification as required to be done in terms of Order VI Rule 15 CPC were number companyplied with.
Election was held to Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly on 11.9.1999.
Respondent number1 after poll was declared elected in the election.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. In these appeals under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for short the Act challenge is made to judgment and order dated 27.12.2002 passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the election petition filed by the appellant, by accepting prayers made by the respondent number1 in that regard.
