NEERAJ DANGI Vs. JAGSI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent No. 1 has filed this application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., on 02.04.2009 contending inter -alia that in the election petition, the sole ground alleged is of furnishing incomplete, wrong and suppressed information in the affidavit submitted by the respondent No. 1. It is alleged that election petition nowhere goes on to point out, as to which provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, hereafter to be referred to as "the Act", or the Constitution puts an obligation for contesting candidate to furnish the records of sale and purchase of the assets, cash flow, educational qualification etc. It is then alleged, that according to Section 81 read with Section 100 of the Act, the election petition can only be filed on the grounds mentioned in the Act, the petitioner has invoked Section 100(1)(d) (i) and (iv), but it is not disclosed, as to how these Sections form a ground. Then regarding the reliance placed on violation of the voters right to know, about the contesting candidate under Article 19(1)(a), it was contended, that the matter is sub -judice before the Apex Court, and till that matter is finally decided, it is not open to the petitioner to raise this ground for challenging the election. With these averments, it is contended in the application that in the election petition, there should be a cause of action, on which the Court can adjudicate, and decide the matter, and such cause of action should be in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1951 i.e. the petition can only be filed on the grounds enumerated in Section 100, and where the facts fail to disclose, as to how this ground is attracted, or which provision of the Constitution, or the Act of 1951, and the Rules, and orders made thereunder have not been complied with, it would amount, to it being a fit case for dismissal of the Election Petition, under Order 7 Rule 11. It has also been contended, that the petitioner has failed to mention, as to under which provisions of law, it is mandatory upon the contesting candidate to disclose the sale and purchase of the assets, and for non -disclosure, the nomination is liable to be rejected, more so when Section 33 does not lay down any such condition. Therefore it is prayed, that the election petition be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11.

(2.) TO this application, no reply as such has been filed. Though since reply to the main petition had also been filed by the respondent No. 1, the petitioner filed application Under Order 8 Rule 9, and the rejoinder, while the respondent No. 1 filed reply -cum -written -statement -cum -objections -cum -rejoinder to that application under Order 8 Rule 9, which all need not detain me here, as this order is being passed only for deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., being I.A. No. 4889/2009.

(3.) A look at the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 (a) would show, that thereunder the petition is required to be rejected, where it does not disclose a cause of action. It is this provision, which is pressed into service by way of the application under consideration.