SUSHIL SINGH Vs. PRABHU NARAIN YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri T.P. Singh, assisted by Sri S.S. Yadav and Sri N.K. Pandey for applicant-respondent No. 1 Prabhu Narain Yadav, the returned candidate, and Sri Y.P. Sharma, assisted by Sri Anil Kumar Shukla for election petitioner Sri Sushil Singh.

(2.) . The above election petition has been filed by Sri Sushil Singh. On its presentation on 2-3-2002, notices were issued on 8-3-2002. On the same day, an amendment application No. (sic) of 2002 dated 7-3-2002, was allowed subject to objections permitting the applicant, to incorporate para I and II for verification of the petition as well as verification of annexures.The service was deemed to be sufficient on the respondents vide order dated 15-2-2002 and 23-7-2002.. The subject application, raising preliminary objection, was filed on 16-8-2002 to which reply/objection was filed on 17-9-2002 vide paper No. A-27. Arguments were heard on 29-10-2002, 13-11-2002 and thereafter on 14-2-2003, and the orders were reserved.

(3.) . Sri T.P. Singh submits that the election petition is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed as the election petitioner has not complied with the provisions of Sections 81, 82 , 83 and 117 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. According to him, the election petitioner has not disclosed any of the grounds required to be disclosed under Sections 100 and 101 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The petitioner has also not complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 83(1) of the Act, as the election petition does not contain a concise statement of material facts and particulars on which the petitioner relies, and has made vague, bald as well as general allegations which do not disclose any cause of action and, therefore, no triable issue can be framed on the basis of allegations contained in the election petition, hence the election petition is liable to be dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Paras 1 to 25 of the election petition are the allegations, sweeping in nature, without having any basis. Election petitioner has not disclosed the grounds as mentioned in Sections 100 and 101 of the Act. It is further submitted that the election petitioner is not accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents, and every such copy has not been attested by the election petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition as required under Section 81(3) of the Act. The copies served on the answering respondent No. 1 is not attested to be true copy of election petition under his own signature.The election petition has not been signed and verified by the petitioner in the manner laid down under Section 83(1)(c) of the Act. The Annexure P-1 to P-6 are also not signed by the election petitioner, and are not verified in accordance with the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. The election petitioner has not signed the original copy of election petition under his own hand writing nor it is verified in accordance with law. It is also alleged that according to the proviso of Section 83(1)(c) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, it is required that the petitioner while alleging the corrupt practice, shall also file an affidavit in prescribed form in support of corrupt practice and give particulars but the election petitioner has not filed the affidavit of corrupt practices in Form 25, in accordance with Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules. The affidavit filed by election petitioner along with election petition is not the original copy of the affidavit and is only true copy.The election petitioner has not supplied the correct postal address of election petitioner and also not annexed the list of documents on which he is placing reliance. He has also, prayed for deletion of respondent Nos. 20 to 22, who are Government officials, and are not required under the law to be arrayed as a party.