[ad_1]
Telangana High Court
Gadhagoni Chakradhar Goud vs Thanneeru Harish Rao on 10 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
*****
I.A.NO.4 OF 2024
IN/AND
ELECTION PETITION NO.15 OF 2024
Between:
Thanneeru Harish Rao S/o. Thanneeru Satyanarayana Rao, aged: 52
years, Occ: MLA, R/o. D.No.11-1-59/2, Bharath Nagar, Siddipet - 502
103
...Petitioner/Respondent No.1 in
Election Petition
AND
1. Gadhagoni Chakradhar Goud S/o. G.Ramakrishna Goud,
aged:36 years, Occ: Social Service, Resident at Flat No.102,
Plot Noa.20-30-31 and 32, Sai Park View, VTC Bachupally,
Nizampet, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana State
...Respondent/Petitioner
in Election Petition
2. Dudi Srikanth Reddy S/o. Raji Reddy, aged:42 years, Occ:
Business R/o. D.No.18-18-66/8K, Hari Priya Nagar, Siddipet
Town and Mandal, Siddipet District and others
....Respondents/Respondents
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 10.06.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
1. Whether Reporters of Local : Yes/No
newspapers may be allowed to see
the Judgment ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may : Yes/No
be marked to Law Reports/Journals
3. Whether Their Lordship/Ladyship : Yes/No
wish to see the fair copy of judgment
_____________________
JUSTICE K.SARATH
SK, J
2 I.A.No.4 of 2024 in/and E.P.No.15 of 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
+ I.A.No.4 of 2024 in/and EP No.15 of 2024
%Dated 10.06.2025
Between :
# Thanneeru Harish Rao
...Petitioner/Respondent No.1
and
$ Gadhagoni Chakradhar Goud and others
...Respondents/Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri J.Ramchander Rao, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the learned Counsel
for Sri R.Chandra Shekar Reddy,
learned Counsel for the petitioner
^ Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri Golla Seshadri
< GIST :
> HEAD NOTE :
? Cases referred :
1.2023 SCC Online SC 573
2.(2001) 8 SCC 233
3. 2024 SCC Online SC 509
4. (2024) 4 SCC 299
5. (2024) SCC Online SC 2548
6 (2024) SCC Online SC 509
SK, J
3 I.A.No.4 of 2024 in/and E.P.No.15 of 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH
I.A.No.4 of 2024
In/And
E.P.No.15 of 2024
ORDER:
The petitioner, who is the respondent No.1 in
E.P.No.15 of 2024, filed this petition under Rule-11 of
Order-VII read with Section 151 of CPC to reject the
Election Petition.
2. Heard Sri J.Ramchander Rao, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner/respondent No.1 and Sri Golla
Seshadri, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/Election
Petitioner.
The contentions of the Petitioner/Respondent No.1
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the respondent No.1 filed Election Petition to declare
the election of the petitioner from Assembly of
No.33-Siddipet Assembly Constituency, Siddipet District,
State of Telangana held on 03.12.2023 as illegal, null and
void and to call for the records. He submits that the
petitioner herein was elected as Member of Legislative
Assembly from Siddipet Assembly Constituency for seven
SK, J
4 I.A.No.4 of 2024 in/and E.P.No.15 of 2024
times and served as Minister in several portfolios. The
nomination of the petitioner was thoroughly checked,
scrutinized by the Officer and upon due verification, his
nomination was accepted. The elections were conducted in
a free and fair manner and the petitioner won the election
with the majority of 83,025 votes and the respondent
No.1/Election Petitoiner got total votes of 16,610 and the
election petition is filed with a malafide intention to upset
the election results based on mere bald allegations that the
information disclosed in Form 26 of the nomination by the
petitioner was inaccurate. He submits that none of
allegations made in the election petition are supported by
either primary documents or reliable source of information
and as per Section 83(1)(b) of Representation of People Act,
1951 (for short ‘the Act 1951’), the allegation of corrupt
practice has to be supported by all the documents and
material facts with date and time.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the petitioner has given all the detailed
information and particulars with regard to criminal cases
pending against him and also the cases in which he was
SK, J
5 I.A.No.4 of 2024 in/and E.P.No.15 of 2024
punished. The petitioner has mentioned all the details
pertaining to the assets i.e, movable and immovable
properties in his election affidavit and the respondent No.1
has made bald allegations without any primary documents
or reliable source of information. He submits that the
allegations in the election petition are not material facts
but are facts based speculation and do not disclose any
triable issue and the election petition can be initiated and
entertained only when there is proper ground of contention
which can be considered.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further
submits that as per Section 77 of the Act, 1951, the
petitioner has maintained separate account for the election
expenditure and the same was submitted to the District
Election Officer under Section 78 of the Act, 1951. He
submits that the respondent No.1 without filing any
primary documents or reliable source of information to
support his allegation has made bald and vague allegations
with regard to the expenditure and as such, the election
petition is liable to be rejected.
SK, J
6 I.A.No.4 of 2024 in/and E.P.No.15 of 2024
6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the election petition lacks concise statement
of material facts as contemplated under Section 83(a) of
the Act, 1951 and lacks full particulars of the alleged
corrupt practice as contemplated under Section 83(b) of
the Act, 1951. He further submits that none of the
allegations with regard to suppression of criminal cases
pending against the petitioner and suppression of
properties would fall within the definition of corrupt
practice of undue influence as envisaged under Section
123(2) of the Act, 1951 and neither of the statements made
in the various paragraphs of the election petition to be a
concise statement of material facts nor material particulars
to give rise to a cause of action with triable issues on falsity
of nomination papers, improper acceptance of nomination
paper and commission of corrupt practice.
7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would
further submit that the respondent No.1/Election
Petitioner has made allegation that the petitioner has
called his associates at 4.05 PM on 30.11.2023 and
informed them to increase the percentage of polling i.e.
45% and instructed them to increase the percentage and
SK, J
7 I.A.No.4 of 2024 in/and E.P.No.15 of 2024
further alleged that, on instruction of the petitioner, his
associates interfered in the polling process and increased
polling percentage up to 85% within one hour and thereby
succeeded in the election by malpractice. The said
allegations are vague, baseless and lack of material facts
and the said vague averments made in the Election Petition
cannot be taken into account. Further the respondent
No.1 also failed to state the source of information and
authenticity of the evidence as required under the Act,
1951, as such the same cannot be admissible as evidence
to conduct trial in the Election Petition.
8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would
further submit that the Respondent No.1/Election
Petitioner has also made allegation stating that in the
election process between 4.00 p.m and 5.00 P.M no
original voters have participated in the Booth Nos.167,
170, 171, 114, 119, 145, 113, 107, 130, 129, 139, 84, 87,
69, 91, 101, 106, 116, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126,
127, 140, 156, 159, 166, 212 and 266 and there were
malpractices in the election process. The said allegations
are bald and vague without stating the material facts in
support thereof as required and to be stated under Section
SK, J
8 I.A.No.4 of 2024 in/and E.P.No.15 of 2024
83 (1) (a) of the Act and the said Section mandates an
Election Petition shall contain concise statement of all
material facts on which the petitioner relies. The
respondent No.1 failed to state material facts in the
election petition as such the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further
submits that as the case would be covered by clause (a) of
Rule-11 of Order-VII of Code of Civil Procedure and the
Election Petition is liable to be dismissed right at the
threshold as the respondent No.1 failed to state single
material fact which lead to cause of action for filing election
petition and as such the election petition is summarily
dismissed on omission of single material facts leading to an
incomplete cause of action and requested to reject the
Election Petition as the pleadings are not specific and
precise and the allegations do not set out grounds as
contemplated under Section 100 of the Act, 1951.
10. Learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner/Respondent No.1 in support of his contentions,
placed reliance on the following Judgments:
SK, J
9 I.A.No.4 of 2024 in/and E.P.No.15 of 2024
3. Karim Uddin Barbhuiya Vs. Aminus Haque
Laskar 3The contentions of the respondent No.1/Election
Petitioner.
11. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1/Election
Petitioner, based on the counter submits that the
respondent No.1 is one of the contested candidates of
33-Siddipet Assembly Constituency in the general elections
held on 30.11.2023 and the petitioner was also contested
on behalf of Bharatha Rasthra Samithi Party and in the
election process and also counting process, there were
several malpractices occurred. Though the respondent No.1
brought all the illegal and malpractices made by the elected
candidate to the notice of the Returning Officer, they did
not take steps to enquire into the matter. He submits that
this application is not maintainable as it is only filed to
avoid trial process in the election petition and the
respondent No.1 has filed all the relevant documents with
regard to the malpractices occurred in the elections which
1
2023 SCC OnLine SC 573
2
(2001) 8 SCC 233
3
2024 SCC Online SC 509
SK, J
10 I.A.No.4 of 2024 in/and E.P.No.15 of 2024
are required to be decided after trial and at this stage, this
application is not maintainable. He further submits that
the representation filed by the respondent No.1 dated
30.09.2024 to the Election Commission of India and other
officials to recount the votes in 33-Siddipet Assembly
Constituency is pending consideration. He submits that
the present application is filed to avoid the trial process in
the election petition and also to avoid recounting process
and the same is not maintainable and is liable to be
dismissed.
12. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1/Election
Petitioner has relied on the following Judgments:-
2. Kimneo Haokip Hangshing Vs. Kenn Raikhan 5
CONSIDERATION & FINDINGS
13. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record,
this Court is of the considered view that the respondent
No.1/Election Petitioner filed the instant Election Petition
questioning the election of the petitioner/respondent No.1
mainly on the following grounds:
4
(2024) 4 SCC 299
5
(2024) SCC Online SC 2548
SK, J
11 I.A.No.4 of 2024 in/and E.P.No.15 of 2024
(i) that the nomination of the petitioner/respondent
No.1 was improperly accepted by the Returning
Officer, as the Form-26 affidavit was submitted
without disclosing the relevant material facts as
required under Law for the purpose of Section 33-A of
the Representation of People Act, 1951.
(ii) The petitioner/respondent No.1 had resorted to
the corrupt practices of undue influence by
suppressing the criminal antecedents which were
required to be placed on record under Law for the
purpose of Section 33-A of the Representation of
People Act, 1951, and
(iii) The petitioner/respondent No.1 deliberately
having knowledge about his landed properties, he
shown the agricultural land as Non-agricultural land.
14. This Court perused the records with regard to the
nomination of the petitioner/respondent No.1 filed along
with the Election Petition. A perusal of the pleadings of the
Election Petition, nowhere it is stated that the respondent
No.1/Election Petitioner made any objection before the
Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny of the nomination
SK, J
12 I.A.No.4 of 2024 in/and E.P.No.15 of 2024
of the petitioner/Respondent No.1 by the Returning Officer.
The respondent No.1/Election Petitioner, without filing any
objection for acceptance of nomination of the
petitioner/respondent No.1 merely stating that the
nomination of the petitioner/respondent No.1 was
improperly accepted by the Returning Officer. Moreover,
the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner has not made any
complaint to the election authorities with regard to
improper acceptance of the nomination of the
petitioner/respondent No.1.
15. The other contention of the Respondent
No.1/Election Petitioner is that, the petitioner/respondent
No.1 has resorted to corrupt practices of undue influence
by suppressing the criminal antecedents which were
required to be placed on record under Law for the purpose
of Section 33-A of the Act, 1951. In this regard, this Court
perused the affidavit filed by the petitioner/respondent
No.1 in Form No.26, wherein the petitioner/respondent
No.1 disclosed the particulars of the pending criminal
cases against him and also cases of convictions. The
respondent No.1/Election Petitioner has not given any
particulars with regard to which cases were not disclosed
SK, J
13 I.A.No.4 of 2024 in/and E.P.No.15 of 2024
by the petitioner/respondent No.1 in the affidavit
submitted by him in Form No.26. The Election petitioner
merely stating that the petitioner/respondent No.1
suppressed the criminal cases/FIRs pending against him
and the Election Petitioner has also not given any
particulars about the charge sheets filed against the
petitioner/respondent No.1. The Election Petition has to
be concise and have to contain all the particulars about the
criminal cases which were suppressed by the
petitioner/Respondent No.1 in the affidavit filed in Form
No.26. In the instant case, the respondent No.1/Election
Petitioner has failed to file any particulars about criminal
cases, FIRs or charge sheets, which were suppressed by
the petitioner/respondent No.1 in his affidavit.
16. Another contention of the Election Petitioner is that,
the petitioner/respondent No.1 deliberately having
knowledge about his landed properties, he has shown the
agricultural land as non-agricultural land pertaining to
Mittapalli Revenue Village of Siddipet Urban Mandal.
17. This Court perused the documents filed by the
petitioner/respondent No.1 at Page No.129 of the Election
SK, J
14 I.A.No.4 of 2024 in/and E.P.No.15 of 2024
Petition i.e. Photo Copy of online Dharani Portal without
any attestation of competent authority, which shows that
the petitioner/respondent No.1 is having agricultural lands
in Sy.No.1037, situated at Mittapalli Revenue Village of
Siddipet Urban Mandal, but the petitioner/Respondent
No.1 stated in Form-26 Affidavit that he purchased an
extent of 1434 Sq.Yards and 520 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.1037
situated at Mittapalli Village of Siddipet Mandal through
registered document dated 15.10.2024 and 21.08.2024
respectively. A perusal of the registered documents
Nos.7078 of 2014 dated 15.10.2014 and 5561 of 2014
dated 21.08.2014 shows that the petitioner/respondent
No.1 purchased the property on square yard basis and
nowhere it is mentioned that it is agricultural land. The
respondent No.1/Election Petitioner basing on the Online
Dharani portal status, stating that the
petitioner/respondent No.1 shown the agricultural land as
non-agricultural land. The respondent No.1/Election
Petitioner has failed to file any authenticated document
issued by the Revenue authorities showing that the
petitioner/respondent No.1 has shown particular property
as non-agriculture land though it is a agricultural land.
SK, J
15 I.A.No.4 of 2024 in/and E.P.No.15 of 2024
In view of the same, the contention of the respondent
No.1/Election Petitioner that the petitioner/respondent
No.1 deliberately having knowledge about his landed
property, he shown the agricultural land as non-
agricultural land cannot be accepted.
18. The contention of the respondent No.1/Election
Petitioner is that the petitioner/respondent No.1 failed to
submit proper records for expenditure as the respondent
No.1/Election Petitioner has obtained all particulars
through Video recording and also extract copy of the
expenditure submitted by the petitioner/respondent No.1
and observers/MCC, NCC, VST and TST Teams were also
misguided and filed Pen Drives containing Video
Recordings in Annexure-VI. The respondent No.1/Election
Petitioner has not filed any Statement of Account of
expenditure submitted by the petitioner/respondent No.1.
There is no mention in the Election Petition about what
was the actual expenditure incurred by the
petitioner/respondent No.1 during the election period and
what was the statement submitted by the
petitioner/respondent No.1 to the Election authorities and
how the same was accepted by the Election authorities.
SK, J
16 I.A.No.4 of 2024 in/and E.P.No.15 of 2024
The respondent No.1/Election Petitioner has not filed any
supporting documents and the said contentions are very
vague.
19. The respondent No.1/Election Petitioner filed a Pen
Drive pertaining to some public meetings conducted by the
petitioner/respondent No.1. In the Election Petition this
Court cannot decide the expenditure incurred by the
petitioner/respondent No.1 during the election period
merely basing on the averments in the Election Petition
and Video footage of public meetings.
20. The other allegation of the respondent No.1/Election
Petitioner is that, on the polling day i.e. on 30.11.2023 at
4.05 p.m. the petitioner/respondent No.1 called his
followers and instructed them to increase the polling
percentage and within one hour the polling percentage
increased from 45% to 85% in particular polling booths
and filed one Pen Drive of Audio recording of the WhatsApp
in Annexure-VI. But the respondent No.1/Election
Petitioner failed to give both-wise and hour-wise
particulars of the polling percentage and there is no
mentioning about any complaint was made to the
SK, J
17 I.A.No.4 of 2024 in/and E.P.No.15 of 2024
concerned authorities immediately after completion of the
election and no copy of complaint is filed along with the
Election Petition.
21. The respondent No.1/Election Petitioner filed counter
in the instant Interlocutory Application stating that he
made representation to the Election Commission of India
and others on 30.09.2024 for recounting of votes. In fact,
the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner filed the instant
Election Petition on 10.01.2024 and it clearly shows that,
as an afterthought, the respondent No.1/Election
Petitioner made representation on 30.09.2024 to the
Election Commission of India and other officials for
recounting of the votes in Siddipet Assembly Constituency.
Therefore, this Court cannot take into consideration of the
said representation for disposal of the instant Interlocutory
Application. Moreover, the respondent No.1/Election
Petitioner has not filed the said representation before this
Court.
22. The Judgments relied on by the learned Senior
Counsel for petitioner/respondent No.1 squarely apply to
SK, J
18 I.A.No.4 of 2024 in/and E.P.No.15 of 2024
the facts of the Instant Interlocutory Application and the
same are extracted as under:
23. In Kanimozhi Karunanidi Vs. A.Santhana Kumar
(supra1), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,
held as follows:
“28. The legal position enunciated in afore-stated cases
may be summed up as under:-
i. Section 83(1)(a) of RP Act, 1951 mandates that an
Election petition shall contain a concise statement of
material facts on which the petitioner relies. If material
facts are not stated in an Election petition, the same is
liable to be dismissed on that ground alone, as the case
would be covered by Clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of
the Code.
ii. The material facts must be such facts as would afford a
basis for the allegations made in the petition and would
constitute the cause of action, that is every fact which it
would be necessary for the plaintiff/petitioner to prove, if
traversed in order to support his right to the judgment of
court. Omission of a single material fact would lead to an
incomplete cause of action and the statement of plaint
would become bad.
iii. Material facts mean the entire bundle of facts which
would constitute a complete cause of action. Material
facts would include positive statement of facts as also
positive averment of a negative fact, if necessary.
iv. In order to get an election declared as void under
Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act, the Election petitioner
SK, J
19 I.A.No.4 of 2024 in/and E.P.No.15 of 2024must aver that on account of non-compliance with the
provisions of the Constitution or of the Act or any rules
or orders made under the Act, the result of the election,
in so far as it concerned the returned candidate, was
materially affected.
v. The Election petition is a serious matter and it cannot be
treated lightly or in a fanciful manner nor is it given to a
person who uses it as a handle for vexatious purpose.
vi. An Election petition can be summarily dismissed on the
omission of a single material fact leading to an
incomplete cause of action, or omission to contain a
concise statement of material facts on which the
petitioner relies for establishing a cause of action, in
exercise of the powers under Clause (a) of Rule 11
of Order VII CPC read with the mandatory requirements
enjoined by Section 83 of the RP Act.
xxxx
33. A elaborately discussed earlier, Section 83(1)(a) of RP
Act mandates that an Election petition shall contain a
concise statement of material facts on which petitioner
relies, and which facts constitute a cause of action. Such
facts would include positive statement of facts as also
positive averment of negative fact. Omission of a singular
fact would lead to incomplete cause of action. So far as
the present petition is concerned, there is no averment
made as to how there was non-compliance with
provisions of the Constitution or of RP Act or of the Rules
or Order made thereunder and as to how such non-
compliance had materially affected the result of the
election, so as to attract the ground under Section
SK, J
20 I.A.No.4 of 2024 in/and E.P.No.15 of 2024
100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act, for declaring the election to be
void. The omission to state such vital and basic facts has
rendered the petition liable to be dismissed under Order
VII, Rule 11(a) CPC read with Section 83(i)(a) of the RP
Act, 1951″.
24. In Harishankar Jain Vs. Sonia Gandhi (supra
2), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :
“33. Without further burdening this judgment by dealing
with each and every other averment made in the two
election petitions, it would suffice to say that we have
carefully read each of the two election petitions and heard
each of the two election-petitioners (appellants) in very
many details specially on the aspect of the election
petitions suffering from the vice of not satisfying the
mandatory requirement of pleading material facts as
required by Section 82(1)(a) of RPA 1951 and we are
satisfied that the two election petitions do not satisfy the
requirement statutorily enacted and judicially explained in
umpteen number of decisions. The petitions are hopelessly
vague and completely bald in the allegations made, most of
which could not possibly be within the personal knowledge
of the petitioners but still verified as true to their
knowledge, without indicating the source. Such pleadings
cannot amount to disclosing any cause of action and are
required to be rejected/dismissed under Order VII Rule
11 CPC.
34. …… ….. ….. However, in spite of answering these
questions in favour of the appellants yet the election
SK, J
21 I.A.No.4 of 2024 in/and E.P.No.15 of 2024petitions filed by them cannot be directed to be heard and
tried on merits as the bald and vague averments made in
the election petitions do not satisfy the requirement of
pleading material facts within the meaning of Section
82(1)(a) of RPA 1951 read with the requirements of Order
VII Rule 11 CPC. The decision of the High Court dismissing
the two election petitions at the preliminary stage, is
sustained though for reasons somewhat different from
those assigned by the High Court. The appeals are
dismissed but without any order as to the costs”.
25. In Karim Uddin Barbhuiya Vs. Aminul Haque
Laskar and others (supra 3), wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that :
“23. As transpiring from the Election Petition, the
respondent no. 1 himself had not raised any objection in
writing against the nomination filed by the Appellant, at the
time of scrutiny made by the Returning Officer
under Section 36 of the Act. According to him, he had
raised oral objection with regard to the education
qualification stated by the Appellant in the Affidavit in
Form-26. If he could make oral objection, he could as well,
have made objection in writing against the acceptance of
nomination of the Appellant, and in that case the Returning
Officer would have decided his objection under sub-section
(2) of Section 36, after holding a summary inquiry. Even if it
is accepted that he had raised an oral objection with
regard to the educational qualification of the Appellant
before the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny, the
respondent No. 1 has failed to make averment in the
SK, J
22 I.A.No.4 of 2024 in/and E.P.No.15 of 2024Election Petition as to how Appellant’s nomination was
liable to be rejected by the Returning Officer on the grounds
mentioned in Section 36(2) of the Act, so as to make his
case fall under clause (d)(i) of Section 100(1) that there was
improper acceptance of the nomination of the Appellant.
The non-mentioning of the particulars as to how such
improper acceptance of nomination had materially affected
the result of the election, is apparent on the face of the
Election Petition.
24. As stated earlier, in Election Petition, the pleadings
have to be precise, specific and unambiguous. If the
allegations contained in Election Petition do not set out
grounds as contemplated in Section 100 and do not
conform to the requirement of Section 81 and 83 of the Act,
the Election Petition is liable to be rejected under Order VII,
Rule 11 of CPC. An omission of a single material fact
leading to an incomplete cause of action or omission to
contain a concise statement of material facts on which the
Election petitioner relies for establishing a cause of action,
would entail rejection of Election Petition under Order VII
Rule 11 read with Section 83 and 87 of the RP Act”.
26. The Judgment relied on by the learned Counsel
for the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner in K.Babu
Vs.M.Swaraj (supra 4) not apply to the facts of the
instant Interlocutory application as the facts are
different.
SK, J
23 I.A.No.4 of 2024 in/and E.P.No.15 of 2024
27. Another Judgment relied on by the learned
Counsel for the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner in
Kimneo Haokip Hangshing Vs. Kenn Raikhan
(supra 5) also not apply to the facts of the instant
Interlocutory application as the respondent
No.1/Election Petitioner failed to file any document in
support of their contention.
28. The Election Petition has to be precise, specific
and unambiguous as held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Karim Uddin Barbhuiya Vs. Aminul Haque
Laskar 6, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
held as under:
“24. As stated earlier, in Election Petition, the pleadings
have to be precise, specific and unambiguous. If the
allegations contained in Election Petition do not set out
grounds as contemplated in Section 100 and do not
conform to the requirement of Section 81 and 83 of the Act,
the Election Petition is liable to be rejected under Order VII,
Rule 11 of CPC. An omission of a single material fact
leading to an incomplete cause of action or omission to
contain a concise statement of material facts on which the
Election petitioner relies for establishing a cause of action,6
2024 SCC ONLINE SC 509
SK, J
24 I.A.No.4 of 2024 in/and E.P.No.15 of 2024would entail rejection of Election Petition under Order VII
Rule 11 read with Section 83 and 87 of the RP Act”
29. A bare reading of the Election Petition and
documents filed along with the Election Petition, it
emerges that the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner
has made only bald and vague allegations in the
Election Petition without stating the material facts in
support thereof as required to be stated under
Sections 83 (1) (a) and 100 of the Act, 1951.
30. The relevant provisions for the election petition
are Section 83 and Section 100(1)(d) of the Act, 1951
which reads as under:
83. Contents of petition.–(1) An election petition–
(a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which
the petitioner relies;
(b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the
petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possible of the
names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice
and the date and place of the commission of each such practice; and
(c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid
down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the
verification of pleadings:
[Provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the
petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed
form in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice and the
particulars thereof.
(2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by
the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition.
SK, J
25 I.A.No.4 of 2024 in/and E.P.No.15 of 2024
100. Grounds for declaring election to be void.– (1) Subject to the
provisions of sub-section (2) if 2 [the High court] is of opinion–
(a)…
(b)…
(c)…..
(d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned
candidate, has been materially affected–
(i) by the improper acceptance or any nomination, or
(ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the returned
candidate [by an agent other than his election agent], or
(iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the
reception of any vote which is void, or
(iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or
of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act, [the High
Court] shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void.
31. The instant Election Petition does not complies
with Section 83 and 100 (1) (d) of the Act, 1951.
There is no triable issue with regard to the alleged
malpractices basing on the averments and documents
filed by the Election Petitioner in the instant case. In
view of the same, the petition filed by the
petitioner/respondent No.1 under Rule-11 of Order-VII
of CPC is maintainable.
32. In view of the above finding, the respondent
No.1/Election Petitioner has not set out the grounds
as contemplated in Section 100 and the requirement of
Section 81 and 83 of the Act, 1951 the instant
Interlocutory Petition filed by the
petitioner/respondent No.1 is liable to be allowed and
SK, J
26 I.A.No.4 of 2024 in/and E.P.No.15 of 2024
the Election Petition filed by the respondent
No.1/Election Petitioner is liable to be rejected under
Rule-11 of Order-VII of CPC.
33. Accordingly, the I.A.No.4 of 2024 in E.P.No.15 of
2024 is allowed. Consequently, the Election Petition
No.15 of 2024 filed by the respondent No.1/Election
Petition is hereby rejected. No order as to costs.
______________________
JUSTICE K. SARATH
Date:10.06.2025.
Note:
LR Copy to be marked
B/o
trr
[ad_2]
Source link