there any averment in the petition as to any defect or malpractice in the companyrse of recounting.
Secondly it was alleged that the vociferous and threatening companyduct of the first respondent companyrced and influenced the voters to vote for him as they were threatened with dire companysequences otherwise.
1999 1 SCR 198 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SRINIVASAN, J. The appellant was declared elected on 11.12.94 in the election held on 26.11.94 for the 133 Holenarasipura Assembly Con stituency in Karnataka State.
IX, was on the ground that the petition did number disclose a cause of action as the allegations of undue influence and recounting were number followed by any averment that the result of the election was materially affected number was.
The High Court disposed them all by a companymon order dated 21.3.96.
It was also alleged that quite a number of invalid votes were companynted in favour of the appellant as if they were valid.
The first respondent filed Election Petition No.
There was an atmosphere of terrorism in several places which prevented the voters from exercising their franchise freely according to their will and choice.
The agents of Janata Dal party to which the appellant belonged were in total companytrol of some polling booths and they were interfering in every election affair.
IX, X and XV filed as aforesaid by the appellant were dismissed.
I.A. No.
On such allegations, the first respondent prayed for declaring the election of the appellant to be void and declaring himself to be duly elected while holding that the order of recount was void and the result of such recount was number est.
The applications I.A. Nos.
Such recounting ordered by the Returning Officer who was unduly influenced by the father of the appellant was in utter disobedience of the mandate of law and vitiated the election.
Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has obtained special leave and preferred these appeals.
X was for rejection of the affidavit filed by the petitioner along with the Election Petition as it did number fulfil the require ments of law and companysequent dismissal of the petition.
XV was for dismissal of the petition on the ground that allegations of companyrupt practices were vague and number supported by material facts or particulars.
There were some other applications filed by the first respondent and respondents 7 8 for other reliefs.
