CH VIDYASAGAR RAO Vs. KOMIREDDY RAMULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent who unsuccessfully contested for the membership of Andhra Pradesh State Legislative Assembly from 25 8 Metpalli Assembly Constituency in Karimnagar District held on 5-12-1994 as a candidate of Indian National Congress-I party filed Election Petition No. 8 of 1995 questioning the declaration of result on 10-12-1994 in favour of the petitioner herein first respondent in the election petition who was nominated by Bharatiya Janata Party on several grounds. The parties shall be referred to hereinafter as they are arrayed in the main election petition.

(2.) This application is filed by the first respondent stating that the election petition is not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951, and therefore, the same is liable to be summarily rejected. The election petitioner has not filed the required number of attested copies of the election petition before 24-1-1995, the last date for filing the election petition; the election petition and the affidavit werenot duly attested by the election petitioner before the said date; the schedule and the material papers in support of the allegations in the election petition were filed after 24-1-1995, and therefore, the election petition is liable to be dismissed. It is further alleged that the contention of the petitioner that the first respondent has not taken oath before the returning officer at the time of filing nomination papers is false besides bereft of material particulars. In view of the allegations in para 4 of the election petition, the returning officer ought to have been made a parry to the election petition and as much, the same has to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party. The allegations in para 5 of the election petition are vague and lacking in material particulars. The allegations in para 6 of the election petition that the first respondent has induced the voters with promises like making metal road, providing additional water tanks, degree college, consfruction of Bodhan-Kurthy bridge and other irrigation projects, sanctioning of 100 borewells, providing loans to Beedi workers are vague besides being false. So also the allegations in para 7 of the election petition that the first respondent had captured the Booths and stamped the ballots in his favour are all delightfully vague besides being false. The further allegations in para 8 of the election petition that the first respondent had spent lavishly by incurring an expenditure of more than one lakh for the meeting conducted during the visit of Sri Venkayya Naidu; that the first respondent had used DCM Van with a decoration worth Rupees one lakh and spent heavy amounts for vehicles and that he made statements that in case he is returned, he will collect double the money spent that he spent a sum of Rupees seven lakhs on 24-11-1994 which are also vague besides being false. The further allegation that the first respondent had spent Rs. 12,10,000/- in all for getting elected or that election authorities have connived with him are false besides being vague. These allegations about the alleged corrupt practices are made without furnishing necessary particulars. None of the grounds alleged in the election petition discloses any cause of action or any triable issue according to law. Hence, the first respondent has filed this application requesting the Court to-dismiss the election petition.

(3.) The election petitioner in his counter- affidavit has stated that the election petition contains the required material particulars and it does not suffer from vague or indefinite allegations.