CHANDRABHAN SINGH CHOUDHARY Vs. KAMAL NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent has been elected as Member of Parliament from Constituency no.16 Chhindwara on 16.5.2009 by a margin of 1,21,320 votes. His election has been questioned in this petition mainly on the ground that he had made expenditure beyond the permissible limit by using helicopter in the election campaign and the expenditure shown by him were not correct. On the aforesaid ground it is alleged that the respondent had used corrupt practice in the election and his election be declared as void under section 100(1)(b), (d), (ii), (iv), 123(6) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 and under Rule 90 of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.

(2.) The respondent on notice has filed two applications in the case, one is under Order 6 Rule 16 C.P.C., read with sections 86 and 87 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) praying that the pleadings as contained in para 12 to 18 partly 19 to 26, partly 28 to 39, 41 and 47 in the petition being unnecessary, frivolous and tend to prejudice or embarrass the trial being an abuse of the process of the Court, so the aforesaid pleadings may be struck out. Another application I.A.No.91/2009 is filed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., read with section 86 and 87 of the Act for dismissal of the petition on the ground that petition is based on hypothesis, is bereft of material facts and does not disclose source of information by appropriate description, so as to attract section 100(1)(b), d(ii), and d(iv) read with section 123(6) of the Act and Rule 90 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules' for short), praying that no cause of action is disclosed in the petition, as is required under the aforesaid provision, so the election petition may be dismissed. The reply of both the applications are filed by the other side.

(3.) To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate if the objections raised in the application I.A.No.91/2009 are referred in brief. The main contention of the respondent in the application is that the pleadings in the election petition are not averments of material facts, but are transcription of exploratory thinking, requiring the High Court to draw inference by adopting an involved process of reasoning. The petitioner has made vague allegations as to the use of the helicopter and has coined a term 'standard charges' with reference to certain invited communication from the Directorate of Civil Aviation, Government of M.P., to show that the respondent was required to make payment of some higher charges, but had shown in the accounts lower charges in comparison to the standard rates fixed for the use of helicopter. The interpretation of the petitioner is wrong and mis-placed. In the entire petition, the petitioner has not pleaded that the respondent has incurred expenditure in a specified sum or has authorized somebody else to incur the expenditure to be reimbursed by the respondent. The material facts in support of the charges of corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123(6) read with section 77 of the Act and Rule 90 of the Rules have not been pleaded, in absence of which the present petition is not maintainable. The facts, circumstances and material in the pleadings are being almost identical to the election petition no.3/1998, which was filed against the respondent on the same allegations of use of helicopter, payment of actual charges below the standard rent prescribed by the State Government. In the aforesaid writ petition similar preliminary objection was raised by the respondent, which was turned down by the High Court, against which an S.L.P. was preferred before the Apex Court, which was decided by the Apex Court on 8.1.2002 reported as Kamalnath Vs. Sudesh Verma, 2002 AIR(SC) 599, by which the Apex Court dealing with the same pleadings had found that no cause of action arose in the matter and dismissed the election petition. It was submitted that in the present case the allegations are vague in respect of use of helicopter and exceeding the ceiling limit of the expenditure, as provided under Rule 90 of the Rules. It was submitted that the allegations does not disclose material fact for attracting section 123(6) read with section 77 of the Act and the election petition may be dismissed.