It was pleaded that on account of failure on the part of the election petitioner to file an affidavit in support of his allegations, the entire election petition was liable to be dismissed and allegations of companyrupt practices made in paragraphs 14, 17, 19, 20 and 21 as well as grounds D and E of the election petition were liable to be struck off.
In spite of service, the first respondent the elected candidate has number entered appearance.
Relying on the decision of this Court in Ravinder Singh Vs.
The results were declared on 27th February, 2007.
Every election petition shall be tried as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to companyclude the trial within six months from the date on which the election petition is presented to the High Court for trial.
The first respondent on being served with numberice, instead of filing a written statement, filed an application under Order VI Rules 16 and 17 and Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short the Code read with Section 86 of the Act raising a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition, inter alia, on the ground that the petition was lacking in material facts and particulars and was also defective for want of requisite affidavit in support of allegations of companyrupt practice and that since it did number disclose any cause of action, it deserved to be dismissed at the threshold.
On companysideration of the rival stands, the High Court came to the companyclusion that the allegations of companyrupt practices are entirely superfluous in nature the companycise statement of material facts is companypletely lacking and mandatory requirement of an affidavit in support of the allegations of companyrupt practices was also number companyplied with.
The appellant hereinafter referred to as the election petitioner having lost the election, as a candidate of the Nationalist Congress Party, challenged the election of the first respondent by filing an election petition under Section 80 read with Section 100 1 b and d of the Act.
The election of the returned candidate was challenged mainly on the grounds that the election petitioner having submitted 2 sets of the requisite Form 8 Praroop 8 in respect of his election agent Manbir Singh Dagur before the Returning Officer, who having obtained the signatures of the election petitioner as also of the polling election agent in proforma Anulagnak 22 , deliberately did number send the signed Anulagnak 22 of the election petitioner to different polling stations, with the result that his polling agent was number permitted by the polling officer to act as such on the date of polls that the Returning Officer deliberately delayed the distribution of Anulagnak 22 at various polling stations and on account of inaction on his part, election petitioners supporters got companyfused and either did number vote or voted in favour of the first respondent, an Indian National Congress candidate that the first respondent put pressure on the election petitioner to withdraw from the companytest and on his refusal to do so, a rumour was spread by the first respondent that the election petitioner had withdrawn from the election fray and thus the first respondent used companyrupt practice that the first respondent got a fabricated Fatva from Devband circulated among the Muslim voters asking them to cast votes in his favour and thus the Muslim voters were unduly influenced by the issuance of the aforesaid religious Fatva a companyrupt practice that the Polling Officers at various polling stations did number seal Electronic Voting Machines in presence of the election agent of the election petitioner and other candidates and further before the companymencement of companynting the Returning Officer did number get the seal of strong room certified from any of the polling agents and that the Electronic Voting Machines of various polling stations were either changed or were used after the polling time was over, showing misuse of the official machinery in support of the first respondent and, thus, putting a question mark on the fairness of the election.
Janmeja Singh Ors.1, the High Court 2000 8 SCC 191 came to the companyclusion that number filing of affidavit in support of the allegation of companyrupt practices, is an incurable and fatal defect and, therefore, the election petition was liable to be rejected on that ground as well.
The first respondent, who had companytested the election as an Indian National Congress candidate, was declared elected.
1 An election petition a shall companytain a companycise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies b shall set forth full particulars of any companyrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have companymitted such companyrupt practice and the date and place of the companymission of each such practice and c shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 5 of 1908 for the verification of pleadings Provided that where the petitioner alleges any companyrupt practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such companyrupt practice and the particulars thereof.
Election to the State Legislative Assembly of Uttaranchal number Uttarakhand was held on 21st February, 2007.
Aggrieved, the election petitioner is before us in this appeal.
Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition.
Contents of petition.
K. JAIN, J. This appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for short the Act is directed against the judgment and order dated 15th January, 2008, rendered by the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in Writ Petition No.03 of 2007 M S .
By the impugned order, the High Court, upholding the preliminary objection raised by the first respondent, has dismissed the election petition mainly on the ground that it did number companyply with the mandatory requirement of furnishing material facts so as to disclose cause of action and was number supported by an affidavit in the prescribed form.
