RIT LAL PRASAD VERMA Vs. TILAKDHARI PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application (at flag H'/I.A. 757/2001) raising preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the Election Petition to be dismissed under S. 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for non compliance of mandatory provision of Ss. 81, 82 and 117 of the Act.

(2.) It is stated that the election petition does not contain the material facts and material particulars as required under the provisions of Section 83 of the Act and so the complete cause of action does not arise. It is further alleged that the election petitioner has also made an allegation of corrupt practice but the full particulars of the said corrupt practice including the nature of the help or favour rendered to the respondent No. 1 has not been given. It is also alleged that the affidavit as required in the prescribed form has not been complied with. It is further alleged that there is an allegation about corrupt practice for procuring the help of Government officers, namely, Sri Mahavir Singh, Circle Officer, Dhanwar and Assistant, Chandrama Sharma for his success, but the full particulars including the date, time and place of canvassing have not been described and as such the Election petition is not maintainable and it is fit to be dismissed.

(3.) On the other hand, the election petitioner filed a petition by way of rejoinder claiming therein that this application raising preliminary objection is fit to be dismissed summarily, as the petitioner has already complied the provisions as required under Sections 81, 82 and 117 of the Act. Material facts as well as material particulars have duly been described in the election petition and full details of corrupt practice have also been stated parawise which have duly been affidavited under the Form 25 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The election petitioner has already mentioned the name of the person, being an officer posted at Dhanwar block and he has also given the name of the Circle Officer. Thus, there is no merit in the preliminary objection petition, which is fit to be rejected.