SUSHIL CHOUDHERY Vs. NEERAJ BASOYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order I shall decide the following two issues which were treated as preliminary issues:

(2.) THE onus of proving this issue was on defendant/respondent. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner had not stated the full particulars and material facts in respect of corrupt practices set forth by him in election petition and on this ground the election petition was liable to be dismissed. He relied on Subhash Desai v. Sharad J. Rao and Ors. AIR 1994 SC 2277.

(3.) DURING arguments, learned Counsel for the respondent pointed that in the petition in ground B, the petitioner has stated that Mr. Ajay Makan threatened the electors of Defence Colony area in a meeting that in case they would not vote for the respondent then the ganda nalla would be kept open and they would have to bear the smell and suffer. It is submitted that the petitioner has not given the details as to when this meeting was held, where this meeting was held, who all were present in the meeting and who informed the petitioner about this meeting. The allegations in ground B lacked the material particulars and the petition was liable to be dismissed. Similarly in ground C the petitioner alleged that respondent himself and through his agents and workers distributed liquor to the voters of the area on 28. 11. 2008 from 7. 30 p. m. to 9. 00 p. m. and mr. Ashwani Gupta, election agent of the petitioner himself saw distribution of the liquor by the agents of the respondent and he made a complaint in this regard to police. It is submitted that it is not given by the petitioner, as to who were the agents and workers of the respondent who distributed the liquor and who were the persons who received the liquor. Though, it is claimed that mr. Ashwani Gupta himself saw the agent but the name of the agent of respondent has not been given by the petitioner. The allegations lacked the material particulars and anybody could be brought to the Court by petitioner to show that he was agent and worker of the respondent irrespective of the fact that respondent knew him at all or not. He stated that the allegations of this corrupt practices lacked the material particulars. Similarly in ground D election petitioner has alleged that respondent and his agents hired/procured vehicles for the conveyance of the electors to the polling stations nos. 1-5, 24-31, 59, 60, 63, 65 and 70 and back to their places. The petitioner has not given the vehicle numbers so hired/procured by the respondent as alleged by the petitioner and thus the allegation lacked the material particulars.