ORDER
V. Gopala Gowda, J.
1. The election to Karnataka Legislative Assembly was held on 5-9-1999. The petitioner and respondents 1 to 11 contested from 81 Chamarajpet Constituency. The 13th respondent Returning Officer declared the result as first respondent got elected. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking declarations that (a) the declaration of result of first respondent as null and void; (b) that first respondent has committed corrupt practices under Sections 123(2) and 123(6) read with Sections 100(1)(b) and 100 (1)(d)(ii) of Representation of the People Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'); (c) that Section 61 (A) of the Act and the Rules under Chapter II of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 as unconstitutional; (d) that the elections under electronic Voting Machine is null and void and to direct re-polling to the aforesaid Constituency and to award costs.
2. The first respondent has filed elaborate statement of objections denying the petition averments and justifying his election and praying to dismiss the election petition. The 2nd respondent filed objections to the election petition and prayed to dismiss the same. The 11th respondent also filed a cryptic written statement.
3. I.A.I. was filed by the 12th respondent praying to delete his name. I.A.II is filed by the respondents to strike off paragraphs 7 to 34 in the election petition. I.A.III was filed on behalf of the first respondent to delete respondents 2 to 13. LA.IV was filed by the 13th respondent/Returning Officer to delete him. I.A.V is filed by the first respondent to dismiss the election petition. A memo was filed on behalf of 14th respondent seeking to delete him from the array of the respondents. The petitioner filed objections to all the interlocutory applications. This Court by an order dated 29-5-2001 allowed I. As I, III and IV and the memo of 14th respondent was accepted. Accordingly, respondents 2 to 14 had been deleted. It was held that the petitioner cannot challenge the vires of Section 61 (A) of the Act and the consequent Rules in the election petition but it can be challenged separately in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, only I.As II and V survive for consideration.
4. The prayer in I.A. II is to strike off paragraphs 7 to 34 of the election petition on the ground that they are frivolous, vexatious and unnecessary and consequently dismiss the election petition. Similar is the prayer in I.A.V also. In the objections filedto these applications, the petitioner contends that since the first respondent understood the case and filed written statement specifically meeting the averments, it is not open to him to seek such a prayer. It is further stated that all necessary and material facts and the material particulars have been pleaded and no pleadings are vexatious or frivolous and unnecessary. It is also stated that the first respondent has not set-out the details of material particulars lacking in the election petition. Defending the petition averments, the petitioner prayed for dismissal of the applications.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. If paragraphs 7 to 34 of the election petition are struck-off as sought for in I.As II and V, the election petition is liable to be dismissed for want of grounds. Therefore, this Court has to meticulously examine the petition averments in those paragraphs in order to avoid injustice to the petitioner.
7. We are not concerned with paragraphs 1 to 7 of the election petition. A perusal of the petition averments would disclose that paragraphs 10 to 34 pertain to use of Electronic Voting Machine and challenge to the vires of Section 61-A of the Act and the consequential Rules. In view of the order of this Court dated 29-5-2001 allowing I.As I, III and IV, it is not necessary for this Court to go into those averments as the said order has become final. Since order has been passed considering those averments, it is not necessary for this Court to strike-off those averments. If they are struck-off, the order dated 29-5-2001 remains and it will not become non-est. Instead of striking off the averments in paragraphs 10 to 34, the same can be ignored for the purpose of considering the election petition. That leaves only paragraphs 8 and 9 for consideration.
8. The corrupt practices of undue influence alleged to have been committed by the first respondent under Section 123(2) of the Act are stated in paragraphs 8(a) & (b). The allegations therein are in the nature of quasi-criminal charges as held by a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the decision reported in : [1985]1SCR1059 (Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh). It was also held that charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal trials. In the case of V. Narayana Swamy v. C. P. Thirunavukkarasu : [2000]1SCR292 it is held that the existence of material facts, material particulars, correct verification and the affidavit are relevant and important when the petition is based on the allegations of corrupt practice and in the absence of those, the Court has jurisdiction to dismiss the petition. It was also held that in a matter of this kind, the primary responsibility of the petitioner for furnishing full particulars of the alleged corrupt practices and to file a petition in full compliance with the provisions of law is on the petitioner. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, this Court proceeds to examine the averments made in paragraphs 8 and 9.
9. In paragraph 8(a) the petitioner has averred thus :--
The 1st respondent exercised undue influence by interfering in the free exercise of the electoral right of the voters of these slums. All sorts of threats were sought to be given to this section of the electorate namely Anandpur slum. Vinoba Nagar, Cement Huts, Vyayamshala huts, Ramanna Garden, D'Souza Garden, Narayanaswamy garden, Rajagopal garden, Huribhatti, Shambupalya, Appajappa gardens, Khader Sharief gardens, Kuntasheelappa Garden, and other slums in the constituency. This undue influence and threats were sought to be done between 20-8-1999 and 5-9-1999. The first respondent informed and threatened the voters of these slums by threatening to get them evicted from the slums within 24 hours if they did not cast their vote in favour of the 1st respondent.'
From a bare reading of the above it is clear that the petitioner has not averred the nature of threats alleged to have been inflicted between 20-8-1999 to 5-9-1999. The only threat mentioned is that first respondent informed the voters that they would be got evicted from the slums within 24 hours if they did not cast their vote in his favour. Paragraph 8(b) also pertains to the same allegation. Though the names of the persons alleged to have committed the corrupt practice are mentioned. The allegations are very vague as it is stated that such things happened between 8-00 a.m. and 12-00 p.m. between 20-8-1999 and 5-9-1999. The details of abduction of a worker working along with one Murthy for the petitioner are not mentioned. Similarly, what dire consequences alleged to have been threatened to one Mr. Thangaprakash, a voter of Vinoba Nagar, are not stated. Thus, the allegations in this regard are vague, bald and do not disclose the material facts. Hence, the same are liable to be struck off.
10. Coming to the averments made in paragraph 9, they pertain to the alleged corrupt practice of incurring expenditure beyond the prescribed limit thereby contravention of Sections 77 and 123(6) of the Act. In paragraph 9(a) of the petition it is alleged that the first respondent has not properly accounted for the posters, pamphlets, handbills, banners, cut-outs, buntings, flags, boarding etc. In paragraph 9(b) the cut-outs said to have been put in various places are mentioned but the costs incurred in this regard are not disclosed. It is stated that in respect of the items mentioned at (i) to (xiii), the first respondent has not accounted. These allegations are not supported by stating material particulars and producing material evidence. Assuming that these allegations are true, it is a matter to be looked into by the Election Commission or the Returning Officer. Non-furnishing of accounts or not accounting for the expenses alleged to have been incurred will not come in the way of election results. This Court cannot go into the correctness or otherwise of those allegations in election petition. The allegations are irrelevant for considering the result of the election. Rightly the first respondent sought for striking off the same on the ground that they are frivolous, vexatious and lack material facts. The allegations, even if accepted to be true, cannot be construed to materially affect the result of the election.
11. In the light of what has been stated above, the contention of Smt. Geetha Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner that the averments should not be struck off as they contain all material facts and none of them is frivolous or vexatious, is liable to be rejected. The reliance placed by her on some of the decisions have no application to fact situation. On the other hand, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the first respondent are applicable in all fours to the case. Mere filing of objections to the Election Petition does not take away the right of R-1 from seeking striking of the averments.
12. For the reasons stated above, the averments contained in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the election petition are liable to be struck off. The averments contained in paragraphs 10 to 34 need not be considered as they pertain to the subject matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
13. For the reasons stated above, I.A. IIis allowed. The petition averments in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the election petition arestruck off. The averments in paragraphs 10to 34 cannot be considered. Consequently,nothing survives for consideration in thispetition.
14. Consequently, I.A. No. V, is also allowed and the Election Petition stands dismissed.
15. In view of the dismissal of the election petition, petitioner shall pay cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the first respondent under Section 99 of the Act.