LALJI CHANDRAVANSHI Vs. AKHBAR BHAI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will govern the disposal of application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as also the election petition filed by the petitioner. By way of instant election petition, the Election Petitioner Lalji Chandravanshi had challenged the election for the Constituency No. 71 namely Pandariya Assembly Constituency held in the month of November, 2008 in State of Chhattisgarh. The Election Commission had notified the election schedule for conducting assembly election for the State of Chhattisgarh in October, 2008 and as per the schedule of notification, the polling took place on 14 -11 -2008 and on the same day the election was declared. In the election, as many as 9 candidates including the petitioner contested the election for the Assembly Constituency No. 71 Pandariya. The petitioner contested on behalf of Bhartiya Janta Party whereas respondent No. 1 Akbar Bhai contested the election as a candidate for Congress (I). In the said election, respondent No. 1 was declared as a returned candidate and the total votes were procured by him were 72,397 whereas the petitioner Lalji Chandravanshi procured 70,536 votes and lost the election.

(2.) THE election petitioner had pleaded in the petition that a complaint was made by the agent of the petitioner namely Dilip Chandravanshi that respondent No. 1 had called and gathered 400 -500 persons from outside the district and the constituency and as such tried to influence the election. A complaint to this effect was also lodged and furthermore, the averments were made that before the date of election on 12 -11 -2008, Respondent No. 1 with the help of his agent Anil Jain and others distributed country made liquor to the voters of village Kanwalpur, Damapur etc. It was further stated that when the complaint was filed, the country made liquor along with the vehicles which were being distributed were also seized. The election petition also contained the averments that the returned candidate/respondent No. 1 had distributed currency notes to different voters to cast their votes in his favour. It was further averred that when such electoral malpractices came to the notice of petitioner and his followers, they tried to catch hold of respondent No. 1 red -handed but he escaped and fled away. It was also pleaded that the distribution of currency notes was also reported to the Police and the Police had tried to arrest Respondent No. 1 but the respondent again managed to escape from the scene. Therefore, on different allegations of corrupt practice the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the election.

(3.) IT was next contended that the allegation of distribution of liquor was made in generality in respect of 3 villages and mainly the allegations were of hearsay in nature. He would submit that the petitioner taking the advantage of the some criminal act of certain persons of village is trying to shift the burden to the respondent coupled with the allegations of corrupt practices. He would submit that in absence of pleading of material facts, no presumption can be drawn that the persons alleged to have distributed the liquor were the agents and followers of the respondents. It is contended that according to respondent No. 1, the allegation on people like such nature may belong to the petitioner himself. He further submits that distribution of currency notes to the voters is also vague. He submits that without pleading any material facts as to whom the money was distributed and in what manner it was done, the said allegation of distribution of currency notes cannot be accepted. He also submits that the election petition should contain specific averments so that the party against whom such allegation is made is in a position to defend any such allegation without giving scope for any speculation. He, therefore, submits that in such circumstances, the election petition is devoid of material particulars and the petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold being not maintainable as no cause of action is made out to try the instant petition.