ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The first respondent in the election petition, filed these four applications. (1) E.A. No. 1092 of 2004 is filed under Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C, read with, Section 83 of Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (for short 'R.P. Act') to reject the election petition. (2) E.A. No. 1093 of 2004 is filed under Sections 83 and 87 of the R.P. Act, read with, Section 151 C.P.C., and Rule 16 of Order VI C.P.C, to strike out Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the election petition. (3) In E.A. No. 1094 of 2004 filed under Section 83 of the R.P. Act, the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to file written statement, after disposal of the applications filed by her. (4) E.A. No. 1192 of 2004 is filed under Section 86(i), read with, Section 81(3) of the R.P. Act for dismissal of the election petition. While the affidavit for the first three applications is common, a separate affidavit is filed in support of the fourth application.
2. The first respondent in these applications, filed the election petition challenging the election of the petitioner from 141 Palamaner (SC) Assembly Constituency, in the elections that were held on 26.4.2004. The sole ground of challenge is that the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Caste, and thereby, she was not qualified, to have been elected from the reserved constituency.
3. The gist of the affidavits filed by the petitioner is as under:
The petitioner was issued a caste (community) certificate, dated 9.1.2004, by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bangarupalyam Mandal, Chittoor District, in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. (SC, ST & BC) Regulation of Issuance of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act'). She made a statutory declaration in Part III of the nomination paper, as required under Section 33(2) of the R.P. Act, read with Rule (4) of the Conduct of Election Rules, and enclosed a caste certificate in support of the declaration, and no objection was taken by any person including the respondent, at the time of scrutiny. It is alleged that unless the declaration and the certificate are challenged, the election petition cannot be maintained. The election petition filed by the first respondent as well as the affidavit accompanying it, contains allegations, which are vague, do not contain essential material facts, constituting cause of action.
4. After extracting three individual sentences occurring in Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the election petition, the petitioner urged that the same deserve to be struck out, and consequently, the election petition be rejected. The petitioner also contended that except alleging that she does not belong to Scheduled Caste, the first respondent did not plead in the election petition, as to which is the sub-caste or the caste to which the petitioner belongs, and on account of vagueness in the pleadings, the election petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. The first respondent filed a common counter-affidavit. It is stated that the petitioner is professing Christian religion and faith and she is not entitled to be treated or recognized as belonging to Mala, a Scheduled Caste. The first respondent contended that he has pleaded material facts constituting the cause of action, as well as material particulars, which, if proved, would entail in setting aside of the election. He submits that the petitions under consideration, are themselves vague, uncertain and filed invoking incorrect provisions, and are not maintainable.
6. Sri K. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the election petition does not contain material facts and thereby, it is liable to be rejected. Inviting the attention of this Court to the provisions of R.P. Act, as well as the Manual of Election Law, 2004, published by the Election Commission, learned Senior Counsel submits that, in the absence of the necessary facts constituting cause of action, the election petition cannot be maintained on the basis of vague, uncertain and baseless allegations. It is his case that once the first respondent pleaded that the caste certificate produced by the petitioner herein was alleged to be tainted with fraud and misrepresentation, the certificate itself constituted an important basis and without filing and supplying a copy of the same, the election petition ought not have been filed. According to the learned Counsel, Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the election petition do not contain any material facts and the contents of Para 5 are vague and uncertain. Placing reliance upon several judgments rendered by the Hon'ble 'Supreme Court, learned Counsel submits that the election petition is liable to be dismissed in limini, and that the applications filed by the petitioner deserve to be ordered.
7. Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand, submits that in Para 3 of the election petition, as well as the affidavit filed in it, the first respondent specifically pleaded that the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Caste, and that she was not qualified to be elected from the reserved constituency. According to him, the said averment in the election petition constitutes the material fact, and it was supplemented by material particulars, in the form of the various certificates referred to, in that paragraph itself. He submits that the averments in Para 4 are nothing but summarization of the earlier pleadings. As regards Para 5, learned Counsel submits that the first respondent was neither a party to the proceedings that culminated in issuance of certificate to the petitioner, nor was he fully aware of the various steps taken therefor. He contends that having regard to the evident social status of the petitioner and her other family members, the only inference that can be drawn, as regards the caste certificate, is that it may have been obtained by playing fraud or through misrepresentation. He submits that the question as to whether the allegation made against the petitioner as to her social status, can be adjudicated only at the trial and the present applications are unwarranted. He too has relied upon the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in support of his contentions.
8. The election of the petitioner has been challenged only on one ground, namely, that she was not qualified to be elected from a reserved Constituency, on account of the fact that, she does not belong to Scheduled Caste. This ground is referable to clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 100 of the R.P. Act. The presentation of the election petitions is guided mainly by the provisions of Sections 81, 82, 83 and 86 of R.P.Act. Section 81 deals with the aspects of limitation and number of copies to be enclosed. Section 82 indicates the parties to be impleaded in the election petition. One of the most important provisions is Section 83, which insists that the election petition shall contain material facts on which reliance is placed, as well as the material particulars of any corrupt practices that the petitioner alleges. It prescribes the procedure for verification and requires that the election petition shall be accompanied by an affidavit where allegations as to corrupt practices are made. Section 86 mandates that the High Court shall dismiss the election petition, if it does not comply with the provisions of Sections 81, 82 or Section 117 of the R.P. Act.
9. There is hardly any election petition in which applications are not filed for rejecting or dismissing them, on the ground of non-compliance with the required procedure, or non-disclosure of material facts. In the recent past, the question as to what constitutes material facts and material particulars came to be considered extensively. Before proceeding to discuss the applications on their merits, certain principles touching on the subject, need to be considered.
10. The expression 'material facts' occurring in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 83 of R.P. Act, came to be recognized almost as a synonym to 'cause of action'. On the other hand, 'material particulars' are those, which, if proved would establish the material facts. Both of them have their foundation in the C.P.C itself. While, failure to plead a material fact would be fatal to the election petition, law permits material particulars to be supplemented even at a later stage. After discussing these two aspects at length with reference to the relevant provisions and decided English and Indian cases, A.P. Sen, J, summed up the law on the subject, in Roop Lal Sathi v. N.S. Gill, (1982) 3 SCC 487, as under:
' The word 'material' shows that the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action must be stated. Omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and the statement of claim becomes bad. The function of particulars is to present as full a picture of the cause of action with such further information in detail as to make the opposite party understand the case he will have to meet.
Thus, the word ' material' in material facts under Section 83 of the Act means facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action; and if any one 'material' fact is omitted, the statement or plaint is bad; it is liable to be struck out. The function of 'particulars' is quite different. The use of ' particulars' is intended to meet a further and quite separate requirement of pleading imposed in fairness and justice to the Returned Candidate. Their function is to fill in the picture of the election petitioner's cause of action with information sufficiently detailed to put the returned candidate on his guard as to the case he has to meet and to enable him to prepare for trial in a case where his election is challenged on the ground of any corrupt practice.'
This enunciation has been adopted and followed in many cases thereafter.
11. One aspect, which needs to be borne in mind in this regard, is that pleading material facts is necessary and mandatory in every election petition, whereas the necessity to furnish material particulars mainly arises in those cases, where corrupt practices are pleaded in challenge to the election. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to several decisions touching on this aspect, it is not felt necessary to refer to all of them, for the reason, that the principle referred to above, was applied to the facts of the relevant cases, if necessary by giving cosmetic touches to it. It is also not necessary to refer to those cases, which were decided touching on the nature of particulars, where the elections were challenged on the grounds of corrupt practices. Just as cause of action would entail in dismissal of suit under Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C., failure to plead material facts would result in rejection of election petition under Section 86(i) of the R.P. Act. The nature of pleadings that can be amended and those, which are beyond the realm of amendment or corrections, were aptly pointed out by the Supreme Court in Mohan Raj v. Surendra Kumar, : [1969]1SCR630 .
12. Another important area of controversy is about the supply of copies. This again arose prominently in cases, where elections were challenged on the grounds of corrupt practices. Such an eventuality does not arise in this case. Learned Counsel for the petitioner made an endeavour to convince this Court that the first respondent ought to have enclosed a copy of the caste certificate of the petitioner, and that the failure to do so, would entail in dismissal of the election petition. This contention should not detain this Court much, for the reason that the caste certificate in question was not relied upon by the petitioner, and if at all anything, he questioned it indirectly. Reference to that certificate, together with the date and other particulars, is made for the first time by the petitioner in the present application. The requirement to supply a copy of a document would arise only when the election petitioner relies upon the same, and if proved to be true, would materially effect the result of the election. If the caste certificate is in support of the petitioner herein, it is no part of the duty of the respondent to prove it, nor can he be made to face any adverse consequences for non-filing of the same.
13. In Mulayam Singh Yada v. Dharampal Yadav, : [2001]3SCR1103 , a vedio cassette was filed into the Court along with the election petition and it was alleged that the cassette depicts certain facts, which constitute corrupt practices. The Supreme Court held that the cassette constitutes material particulars in relation to corrupt practice and non-supply of the same to the returned candidate would entail in dismissal of the election petition. That decision has no application to the instant case. Though the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner referred to certain other decisions touching on the circumstances, under which the documents are treated as an integral part of the election petition, and the necessity of their being supplied to the opposite parties, it is not felt necessary to deal with the same extensively, because such a situation does not arise in this case. Recently, in Regu Mahesh v. Rajendra Pratap Bhanj Dev, : AIR2004SC38 , it was held that allegations of fraud etc., in obtaining a caste certificate cannot be equated to those of corrupt practices, and the principle governing the latter cannot be applied to the former.
14. Sardar Harcharan Singh Brar v. Sukh Darshan Singh and others, 2004 AIR SCW 6205, decided by the Supreme Court on 27.10.2004, (which is yet to be reported, but available on Supreme Court website), arose out of an election petition, wherein allegations of malpractices made. It was observed as under:
'Non-compliance with the provisions of Section 83 of the Act, however, does not attract the consequences envisaged by Section 86(1) of the Act. Therefore, an election petition is not liable to be dismissed in limine under Section 86 of the Act, for alleged non-compliance with provisions of Section 83(1) or (2) of the Act or of its proviso. The defect in the verification and the affidavit is a curable defect. What other consequences, if any, may follow from an allegedly 'defective' affidavit, is required to be judged at the trial of an election petition but Section 86(1) of the Act in terms cannot be attracted to such a case'.
Prayer for dismissal of election petitions, where no corrupt practices are pleaded, needs to be considered with a caution of a higher degree.
15. Reverting to the facts of the case, the first respondent narrated several facts, in relation to the petitioner herein as well as her family members, in Para 3 of the Election Petition. Reference is made to the manner in which the parents of the petitioner were married, the fact that her mother is working as a teacher and spreading Christian faith. It was also alleged that the first respondent was married to one Mr. Lukas Thomas and that their marriage was solemnized at a church at Nalagampalli Village of Bangarupalyam Mandal. The Study Certificate, School Admission Certificate and Transfer Certificate relating to the first respondent, at the level of school as well as college are filed. Though no corrupt practices are pleaded, an affidavit is also filed, which is nothing but the election petition filed in first person. The first sentence of Paragraph 3 reads as under:
'This election petition is being filed on the ground that the 1st respondent is not qualified to be chosen to represent 141 Palamaner (SC) Constituency as she is not a member of any of the Scheduled Castes enumerated under Article 341 of the Constitution of India for the State of A.P. for which the seat is reserved as contemplated under Section 5 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951, read with Section 100(1)(a) of the Act and consequently declare the election of the 1st respondent as void.'
16. In the nature of the challenge to the election of the petitioner, the above sentence can certainly be taken as a material fact. If there exists any doubt as to it, the entire Paragraph 4, supplemented the same. It reads as under:
'The petitioner submits that the 1st respondent being a born Christian could not have contested the Palamaner (SC) Constituency as she does not belong to any of the castes enumerated for the State of A.P under Article 341 of the Constitution of India. Adi Andhra Christian is not one of the enumerated Scheduled Castes. She is therefore not entitled to contest in the constituency reserved for Scheduled Caste and her election is therefore liable to be declared as void'.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the election petition does not contain material facts or that it does not disclose cause of action.
17. In Paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the petitions, the petitioner summed up the objectionable portions of the election petition as under:
'In support of the aforesaid ground, the election petitioner has set out the following pleadings, as part of material facts, in Para-3, 4 and 5 of the election petition, which are as under:
(a) Para -3: She is not a member of any of the enumerated Scheduled Caste under Article 341 of the Constitution of India for the State of A.P for which the seat is reserved as contemplated under Section 5 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.
(b) Para-4: She does not belong to any of the castes enumerated for the State of A.P under Article 341 of the Constitution of India.
(c) Para-5: Respondent-1 seems to have manipulated the authorities or played fraud on them to get a certificate from the authority concerned that she belongs to Scheduled Caste'.
In E.A. No. 1093 of 2004, the prayer reads as under:
(a) strike out the pleadings made Para-3, 4 and 5 of the Election Petition No. 9/2004, as extracted in Para-6 of this E.A;
(b) reject the Election Petition No. 9/2004; and
(c) Respondent No. 1 (Returned candidate) may be permitted to file Written Statement in the Election Petition No. 9/ 2004, after disposal of E.A.'
18. There is nothing objectionable either in Para 3 or 4 of the election petition. However, in the first two sentences, in Para 5, the first respondent has alleged that the petitioner appears to have manipulated the authorities or played fraud on them to get a certificate. The allegations contained in these two sentences are as vague as they could be. They read as under:
'The petitioner submits that the 1st respondent seems to have manipulated the authorities or played fraud on them to get a certificate from the authority concerned that she belongs to Scheduled Caste. The certificate might have been issued by the authorities as she is a candidate sponsored by the Telugu Desam Party which party was in power during that time'.
19. The pleadings in an election petition are required to be accurate and based on knowledge of the election petitioner or true to his information. These are, in fact, the basic principles of pleadings. Rule 16 of Order VI C.P.C mandates that the Court may strike out such pleadings, as are found to be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous and vexatious, etc., at any stage of the proceedings.
20. The two sentences referred to above do not fit into the knowledge or information of the first respondent. It is settled principle of law that fraud is a pure question of fact and the party pleading it has to come out with the relevant facts, which, if proved, would constitute fraud. The expressions such as, 'seems to have', 'might have been' have no place in the pleadings before any Court. The party figuring as a defendant or respondent in the proceedings in which, such pleas are taken, cannot be expected to meet them with an element of exactitude. It would be difficult for any Court to act upon such allegations or pleadings. Hence the two sentences referred to above deserve to be struck out from the election petition. The corresponding sentences in Para 5 of the affidavit stand on the same footing. However, even if the said two sentences are struck off, it does not result in dismissal of the election petition, as such.
21. For the foregoing reasons:
(a) EA No. 1092 of 2004, and EA No. 1192 of 2004 are dismissed.
(b) E.A. No. 1093 of 2004 is party ordered directing that the first two sentences in Para 5 of the election petition as well as the affidavit filed in support thereof, are directed to be struck out.
(c) EA No. 1094 of 2004 is ordered granting two weeks time from today, to the petitioner therein to file written statement in the election petition.
(d) There shall be no order as to costs.