(1.) THIS petition under Sections 80 and 81 of the Representation of the People Act. 1951 (hereinafter to be called the Act) has been filed by Shri Kesho Ram challenging the election of Shri Harbhagwan Singh, Respondent, No. 1. Respondent No. 1 was elected from the Kot Kapura Assembly Constituency during the elections held in February, 1967, defeating the Petitioner as also Shri Mehar Singh, who has been impleaded as Respondent No. 2.
(2.) IN the written statement of Respondent No. 1 a preliminary objection was raised that the petition was liable to be dismissed on the short ground that the Petitioner had not alleged in the petition that the result of the election so far as the returned candidate was concerned had been materially affected by the alleged improper acceptance of the nomination papers of Respondent No. 2. The petition was therefore, liable to be dismissed as it did not disclose any cause of action. It may be mentioned that Respondent No. 2 was served by registered post, but he did not appear and ex -parte proceedings were ordered to be take against him on 19th May, 1967. When a preliminary issue was framed embodying the preliminary objection raised in the written statement of Respondent No. 1. counsel for the Petitioner took a few adjournments by saying that the Petitioner wanted to withdraw the petition and that a formal application would be filed. That was not done in spite of ample opportunity having been given. The arguments on the preliminary issue have been heard and there can be no manner of doubt that the petition merits dismissal. It does not disclose any cause of action on which a triable issue can be raised.
(3.) NOW , the allegations contained in the petition are based on or relate to improper acceptance of the nomination papers of Respondent No. 2 and its effect on the result of the election. This could fall under Sub -clause (i) of clause(d) of Sub -section (1) of Section 100 of the Act which contains the grounds for declaring election to be void. That provision is to, the effect that the result of the election in so far as it concerns a returned candidate has been materially affected by the: improper acceptance of any nomination. The Petitioner, therefore has to allege (a) that there has been improper acceptance of any nomination; and (b) that the result of the election in so far as it concerns a returned candidate has been materially affected.