(1.) THIS is an application filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 (Smt. Reeta Verma) raising preliminary objection that the election petition as framed is not maintainable as it has got no valid cause of action and does not speak of any violation of the Rules and also contains vague allegations. The sources of information are unknown counting agents. The election petitioner has no where stated that he himself was in fact connected with the process of election in any manner as well as he does not claim to have cast his vote. It is further stated that no any request at all was made by respondent No. 2 to the Observer of the Election Commission to intervene in the matter during the course of counting, though the counting was held for two days and the counting of ballot papers continued uninterruptedly under the full view of the candidates and their authorised counting agents. The petitioner or other candidates who was/were contesting the election had never raised any objection in respect of counting of 5 per cent of the accepted ballot papers and, as such, no cause of action arose to the election petitioner to file this application (election petition) which is vague and without cogent or reasoned basis. No counting agent had made any written complaint of mis -counting at any stage of counting as required by law. Even respondent No. 2 has never demanded any sort of re -counting of the ballot papers and, as such, the election petitioner has got no locus standi to make such a grievance after the final result was published and notified. The election petition does not contain the statement of material facts on which the petitioner is supposed to rely as well as it does not state the full particulars of any corrupt practice as alleged. Moreover, the alleged corrupt practice as regard to one Kapildeo Pandey is not accompanied by the affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation thereof. It is further stated that Mr. B.N. Moria is though a relevant person to certify the authenticity or otherwise of the statement is not a party respondent. On this score, as being a ground of non -joinder of the party, this election petition is fit to be rejected. The statements contain in the entire election petition taken together do not make out a prima facie case which is vague and there is no cause of action and, as such, the election petition is fit to be dismissed.
(2.) ON the other hand, the election petitioner filed rejoinder claiming therein that the application raising preliminary objection is vague and misconceived. In fact the election petition has got valid cause of action as the election petitioner has furnished adequate statement of material facts in his election petition. The petitioner has already stated in paragraph 2 of his election petition that he was neither a candidate nor the election agent or counting agent of any of the contesting candidates, but whatever information he got regarding several illegalities and irregularities in the counting of the ballot was through various Newspapers and also from the counting agents, contesting candidates and also from the counting agents, contesting candidates and also from the voters. It is further stated that protest was made by some of the candidates including the respondent No. 2 and a request was made to the Returning Officer, Assistant Returning Officer (A.R.O.) and to the Observer of the Election Commission in respect of the accepted ballot papers of candidates, at least of 5 per cent of the accepted ballot papers which has been provided specifically in the order/direction of the Election Commission of India exercising their power under Article 324 of the Constitution of India which is mandatory in Character but this was not done despite several reminders. The election petitioner has not made allegation of corrupt practice in his election petition. The application filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 raising preliminary objection is mala fide, frivolous and it is fit to be dismissed.
(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the cases in Jai Nandan Singh v. Shankar Dayal Singh and Ors., AIR 1999 Patna 231, V.S. Achuthanandan v. P.J. Francis and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 837 and Mahendra Pal v. Ram Dass Malanger and Ors., AIR 2000 SC 16.