PARAS Vs. CHAITANYA KASHYAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall govern disposal of IA No. 6731/2014, i.e. an application under Order VII Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity the Code), for rejection of election petition inter alia on the ground of nondisclosure of cause of action or a triable issue.

(2.) Assembly elections of State of Madhya Pradesh held on 25.11.2013, in the election, Petitioner and Respondent no.4 (Dr. Arun Purohit) were in a frey as independent candidate whereas the Respondent no.1 was the official candidate of Bhartiya Janta Party. The election results were declared on 8.12.2013 and the respondent no.1 was declared elected. In this petition, election of Respondent No.1 to MP legislative assembly constituency no. 220 Ratlam City (general) has been challenged on the grounds that (i) Respondent no.1 has furnished incorrect information in regard to his residential address and (ii) has concealed the fact in regard to pendency of criminal case in nomination form; and (iii) he committed corrupt practices by publishing a false statement of fact in newspaper.

(3.) The respondent no.1 has filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 r/w section 151 of Code for rejection of election petition on two grounds: (i) nondisclosure of cause of action or a triable issue in the petition and (ii) material facts and full particulars in regard to corrupt practices are missing. To clarify the grounds it is stated that the respondent no.1 has neither made any false declaration nor has concealed anything while submitting his nomination form. Respondent no. 4 was an independent candidate in the election and there is no averment in the petition that respondent no.4 had published the advertisement in the newspaper at the instance of respondent no.1. However the publication was not false therefore it does not fall within the definition of corrupt practices. Thus from a bare perusal of the pleadings made in the petition and the documents filed alongwith the petition, it is clear that the respondent no.1 has neither guilty for non compliance of any rules or orders made under the Representation of the People Act 1951 (herein after "Act") nor he has committed any corrupt practices. Therefore, the petition does not disclose any cause of action and make out any ground to set aside the election of respondent No.1. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.