ANANTRAO NARAYAN THOPTE Vs. KASHINATH PARVATI KHUTWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS chamber summons is at the instance of returned candidate praying therein that election petition be dismissed summarily under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with section 86 of Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (for short "r. P. Act" ).

(2.) IN the affidavit in support of the chamber summons, the returned candidate has stated that dismissal of election petition is sought since the election petition does not satisfy the mandatory requirements prescribed in the R. P. Act. According to the returned candidate the pleadings in the election petition do not contain the statement of material facts nor the particulars with dates and details have been stated. It is thus, stated in the affidavit in support of chamber summons that the pleadings are not verified in accordance with the mandate of law; the election is sought to be challenged on the ground of corrupt practice solely on the ground of alleged speeches made by Shri Sharad Pawar and the alleged publication which is annexed as Exhibit "d" to the election petition but the material facts in relation thereto are not pleaded; the election petitioner has also based his case on the ground that the returned candidate published the alleged pamphlets but there is inconsistency in the election petition in that regard in asmuch as at one place, the election petitioner has alleged that the pamphlets were got published by the returned candidate at Rajreshwar and at another place it is alleged that at an election meeting held on 8th September, 1999 at village Velhe in Pune district pamphlets were distributed; in the election petition, reference to pamphlets has been made but no proper particulars about the same have been given; there are no proper pleadings of corrupt practice given necessary for raising triable issues in the election petition at one place the petitioner refers to the public meeting held on 8th September, 1999 and alleges that pamphlets were distributed by Shri R. Darvatkar and in another paragraph, the election petitioner has stated that pamphlets were distributed by Shri Dilip Bathe and the petitioner does not disclose while referring to Shri Darvatkar that the pamphlets distributed by him were published by whom. The returned candidate has set up the case that these facts do not meet the requirement of precise statement of fact and particulars about the corrupt practice contemplated by section 83 (1) (b) of the R. P. Act. It is alleged by the returned candidate that the election petition is verified by the petitioner as being based upon the facts which are true to his own knowledge while in the affidavit in support of the election petition, the petitioner has tried to make distinction between the facts true to his personal knowledge and facts believed to be true based on information received by him. According to returned candidate there is inconsistency in the verification of election petition and the affidavit annexed therewith and, therefore, election petition does not inspire confidence at all. In some and substance, it is the case of the returned candidate that election petition does not disclose any cause of action deserving consideration by this Court and the election petition deserves to be dismissed at threshold.

(3.) THE chamber summons taken out by the returned candidate is contested by the election petitioner and in the affidavit in reply, it is stated that the election petition does contain material facts constituting corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123 (4) of the R. P. Act and that all mandatory requirements prescribed in the R. P. Act have been complied with. According to the election petitioner, the election petition contains concise statement of material facts and full particulars thereof which constitute corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123 (4) of the R. P. Act. The requisite pleadings and ingredients of the material facts have been pleaded and full particulars have been furnished with regard to every corrupt practice pleaded by him in the election petition including with regard to the pamphlets. The election petitioner has stated that the pleadings in the election petition are sufficiently clear and precise and in accordance with the provisions of section 83 of the R. P. Act and the returned candidate has understood the same sufficiently and then filed the written statement. The election petitioner has denied any defect in the verification or inconsistency in the verification of the election petition and the contents of the supporting affidavit. Without prejudice to above, the election petitioner has stated that if this Court comes to the conclusion that the election petition does not provide sufficient particulars and/or there is any defect in the verification or the affidavit, he is ready to furnish and/or rectify the defect. It is thus prayed by election petitioner that chamber summons be rejected.