Judgment:
ORDER
Harphul Singh Brar, J.
1. In this Election Petition filed under Section 80 read with Sections 81, 82, 83, 100 and 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short hereinafter called 'The Act'), a prayer has been made to set aside the election of respondent Shri Krishnan Lal Panwar, M.L.A. from 16-Assandh Assembly Constituency (Reserve) and to disqualify him from contesting the election for a period of six years because of the corrupt practices allegedly committed by him as mentioned in the petition.
2. Briefly stated the facts taken out from the petition are that the notification by the Election Commission of India was published on 18/19th March, 1996 calling for the election to the Haryana Legislative Assembly. The petitioner and respondent along with others filed their nomination papers to contest the election from 16-Assandh (Reserve) Assembly Constituency. After the date of withdrawal only I4candidates including the petitioner and the respondent remained in the field. The petitioner was the official nominee of Haryana Vikas Party and the election symbol of Haryana Vikas Party and the petitioner was 'A boy and a girl hand-in-hand standing' whereas the respondent was the nominee of Samata Party and the election symbol of Samata party and the respondent was 'Mashaal' (Flame). Shri Jai Kumar was the official nominee of the Indian National Congress and his election symbol was 'Open Hand'. After the election, the respondent was declared elected on 9-5-96 at about 5.00 p.m.
3. It has been alleged in the petition that the respondent has shown his total election expenses as Rs. 80,557.31, whereas he has spent on his election from 16-Assandh (Reserve) Assembly Constituency more than the prescribed limit of expenditure of Rs. 1,35,000/-. Thus, according to the petitioner, the respondent has committed the corrupt practice under Section 123(6) of the Act by incurring the expenditure in contravention of Section 77 of the Act. As per the election expenses return filed by the respondent, he has incurred the following expenditure under different main heads :--
'1.
Security deposit for nomination.
Rs. 125.00
2.
Expenditure on purchase of copies of electoral rolls.
Rs. 1740.00
3.
Expenditure on printing of posters.
Rs. 4000.00
4.
Expenditure of printing of handbills.
Rs. 4200.00
5.
Hiring charges of loudspeakers for public meetings.
Rs. 5250.00
6.
Visits of VIPS.
Rs. 900.00
7.
Hiring charges ofvehicles and their petrol.
Rs. 47361.26
8.
Misc. expenses otherthan those listed above.
Rs. 16402,55'
4. The further allegation of the petitioner is that the respondent has not filed the correct returns of his expenditure incurred by him from the date of filing his nomination papers till the declaration of the result. The respondent, according to the petitioner, has infact, spent much more on his election than shown by him in his election expenditure return.
5. The petitioner has levelled many allegations of corrupt practices against the respondent which I will refer to at the relevant stage.
6. The respondent has filed the return and has rebutted the allegations made by the petitioner in his election petition.
7. Replication to the written statement was also filed in which the allegations made in the election petition have been reiterated and the reply given by the respondent has been rebutted.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner proposedthat the following issues may be framed :
1. Whether the respondent has made expenditure in his election as set out in various paras of election petition in excess to the limit set out by Section 77 of Representation of the People Act?
2. Whether respondent has committed corrupt practice as envisaged under Section 123(6) of the Representation of the People Act as mentioned in para No. 8 to para No. 17 of the election petition?
3. Whether the respondent has committed the corrupt practice under Section 123(6) of the Act, as mentioned in paras Nos. 10, 11 and 12 of the election petition?
4. Relief.'
9. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent has proposed that following issues may be framed:
' 1. Whether paras Nos. 8, 9(a), 9(b), 9(c), 9(d) 9(e), 10to 17 of the Election Petition are liable to be struck off being vague and deficient material facts, under Order 6, Rule 16 of the CPC.
2. Whether the election petition is liable to be dismissed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the C.P.C., if issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the respondent OPR
3. Whether respondent No. 1 has committed corrupt practice as envisaged under Section 123(6) of the Act, as mentioned in paras Nos. 8, 9(a) to 9(e) of the election petition OPP.
4. Whether the respondent has committed the corrupt practice under Section 123(6) of the Act, as mentioned in paras Nos. 10, 11 and 12 of the Election Petition. If so to what effect on the election of the respondent? OPP.
5. Whether the respondent has committed corrupt practice under Section 123(6) of the Act on the grounds mentioned in para No. 13 of the election petition. If so to what effect? OPP.
6. Whether the respondent has committed corrupt practice under Section 123(6) of the Act on the grounds mentioned in para No. 14 of the election petition. If so, to what effect? OPP
7. Whether the respondent has committed corrupt practice under Section 123(6) of the Act on the grounds mentioned in para No. 15 of the election petition. If so to what effect OPP
8. Whether the respondent has committed corrupt practice under Section 123(6) of the Act on the grounds mentioned in para Nos. 16 and 17 of the election petition. If so to what effect? OPP
9. Relief.'
10. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that issues Nos. 1 and 2 proposed by him may be treated as preliminary issues.
11. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I held that issues Nos. 1 and 2 proposed by the learned Counsel for the respondent be treated as preliminary issues and the case was adjourned for arguments on the preliminary issues.
12. Both the learned Counsel for the parties have been heard on the preliminary issues.
13. The learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted at the outset that the alleged allegations of corruption made in paras 8, 9-A, 9-B, 9-C, 9-D, 9-E, 10 to 17 are vague, deficient in material particulars and do not disclose any cause of action. He has brought to my notice the following authorities of the Supreme Court to substantiate his arguments:--
AIR 1987 SC 1577, Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Shri Rajiv Gandhi;
AIR 1986 SC 1253, Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi;
AIR 1984 SC 621, Daulat Ram Chauhan v. Anand Sharma;
AIR 1972 SC 515, Hardwari Lal v. Kanwal Singh;
AIR 1966 SC 796, Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil;
AIR 1996 SC 826, Ramakant Mayekar v. Smt. Celine D. Silva.
14. I would now consider the various paras of the election petition to determine as to whether the allegations contained therein disclosed any cause of action. The relevant paras containing the allegations of various corrupt practices are paras 8, 9-A, 9-B, 9-C, 9-D, 9-E and 10 to 17.
15. In para No. 6 of the petition it is mentioned that the respondent has shown his election expenses as Rs. 80557-31 paise, whereas, he has spent on his election more than the prescribed limit of Rs. 1,35,000/-andthus, he has committed a corrupt practice under Section 123(6) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called 'the Act') by incurring expenditure in contravention of Section 77 of the Act. In this para a detail of expenditure, as per election expenses return filed by the respondent, has been mentioned.
16. In para 7, it is simply mentioned that the respondent has not filed the correct return of his expenditure incurred by him from the date of filing his nomination papers till the declaration of the result. No details etc. have been given.
17. In para 8, the petitioner has alleged that the respondent has used 18 cars/jeeps from.7-4-1996 to 26-4-1996 and two cars/jeeps on 27-4-1996. It is further averred that these cars/jeeps were hired at the rate of Rs. 450 to Rs. 600/- and diesel and petrol have been used on each of them for about Rs. 1 100/- per day to the minimum. It is further alleged that vehicle bearing No. HR 40-0036 has been used even prior to 7-4-96 and no hire charges are shown for use of this vehicle from beginning to the end. It is then alleged in this para that the respondent had sought permission to use only 4 cars/jeeps, whereas, he has used another 14 vehicles without the permission of the Returning Officer. It is then alleged that the total expenditure incurred on vehicle hire charges comes to Rs. 1,80,000/- and diesel and petrol has been used amounting to Rs. 36,000/- and, thus, the respondent has spent Rs. 1.16 lac only on the use of cars during the election whereas he has shown a petty sum of Rs. 55,000/- on account of hire charges and petrol. It has further been alleged in this para that Shri Jagdish Garg of Assandh, Captain Tara Chand of Jaisinghpur, Satibir son of Chhaju Ram of village Josi and Mahabir Singh of village Nara amongst others have seen the vehicles plying on the road during the election time from 7-4-1996 to 27-4-1996 on behalf of the respondent.
18. The allegations made in this para are vague and deficient in material particulars and do not connect the respondent with the use of jeeps and cars. It has not been mentioned in this para that the cars and jeeps mentioned therein were hired by the respondent, his agent or any person authorised on his behalf. It is again missing as to whether the petrol alleged to have been used in these cars was managed by the respondent or his agent or any person authorised on his behalf.
19. Again a vague allegation has been made that the petitioner used 14 other vehicles without the permission of Returning Officer. No detail has been given as to which were those vehicles which have not been mentioned or whether these are cars, trucks or tempos or anything else. It thus does not connect the respondent with these vehicles at all. The further allegation that Jagdish Garg, Satbir son of Chhaju Ram and Mahabir amongst other have seen the vehicles plying on the road during the election from 7-4-1996 to 26-4-1996 is again vague which does not connect the respondent with this allegation at all.
20. In para No. 9-A, it has been alleged that the respondent had sought permission from the Returning Officer to use the loudspeakers from 1-4-1996 to 10-4-1996 on the following vehicles/ places :--
1. HR-40-0036
2. HR-19A-0017
3. Election Office of the respondent at Assandh
4. Rickshaw at Assandh.
It has then been alleged that a Court fee at the rate of Rs. 7.50 per day per vehicle/place per loudspeaker was given by the respondent. It is then alleged that the rent for one set of loudspeaker/battery was not less than Rs. 120/-per day. It is alleged that Rs. 1440/- for the use of loudspeakers from 8-4-1996 to 10-4-1996 on the abovesaid vehicles/places/rickshaws etc. were spent by the respondent. It is then alleged that Jagdish Garg of Assandh has seen the use of vehicles and the loudspeakers. Again this allegation is vague and devoid of material particulars. The respondent might have sought the permission to use loudspeakers on the vehicles/ places mentioned by the petitioner but there is nothing to show as to whether these loudspeakers were used at all and if so when and where and at which place. It has only been generally stated that one Jagdish Garg of Assandh has seen the use of vehicles and the loudspeakers. It has not been mentioned as to where and at which place Jagdish Garg or anyone else saw the respondent, his agent or any other person authorised on his behalf using the loudspeakers fitted on those vehicles or fitted on any particular place.
21. In para 9(b) the allegation made is that the respondent had sought the permission to use the loudspeakers on one rickshaw, election office at Karnal Road Assandh and election office at Madlauda from 11-4-1996 to 25-4-1996 from the Returning Officer. It is alleged that he had used the loudspeakers from 11-4-1996 to 25-4-1996 on the above vehicles/places and paid Rs. 120/-per day for one loudspeaker for one, vehicle/ place. Again this allegation is vague. It has simply been stated that the respondent used loudspeakers from 11-4-1996 to 25-4-1996 and incurred an expenditure of Rs. 10462.50. No details have been given as to where and when at which place by whom at what time these loudspeakers were used. A general statement has been given of the use of loudspeakers on some vehicles. No identity of the election office, no person who managed that office, no name of a person is given who used any loudspeaker and from where these loudspeakers were brought. If full particulars were given then the respondent could have a chance to explain. The allegation of corrupt practice should be such which does not need further details. After reading the allegation one should be able to reach at some conclusion and something should not be left to be guessed later on.
22. Again in 9(c) the allegation is that respondent sought permission from the Returning Officer for the use of loudspeakers at the election office at Munak, Salwan and at some rickshaw and some expenditure was incurred on that. Again after reading this, I find that it lacks details and it keeps you guessing as to from where the loudspeakers were hired by whom at what rate and they were used by whom where and at what place and from which time to which time. Similar types of vague allegations have been made in paras 9(d) and 9(e) which lack material particulars and details.
23. In para 10, it is averred that the respondent distributed/pasted posters of election manifesto in the constituency. One of these posters is attached as Annexure P-1. It carries no print line. The expenditure on the printing, paper and distribution has not been shown in the election expenses return by the respondent. On a conservative estimate the expenditure incurred by the respondent on the printing etc. comes to about Rs. 7000/-. It is further stated in this para that respondent also distributed posters carrying the photographs of Ch. Devi Lal and Shri Chander Shekhar and the photograph of the respondent in the constituency carrying printing line of Dewan Fine Art Printers, Chaura Bazar, Karnal. The expenses incurred by the respondent on paper, printing and distribution of 3000 posters have again not been shown by the respondent in his election expenses return. The expenses of 3000 posters on a conservative estimate incurred by the respondent comes to about Rs. 10,000/-. Copy of the poster is attached as Annexure P-2. It is then stated in this para that the respondent distributed/pasted posters carrying photograph of the respondent and also an appeal to the voters to vote for the respondents. The posters having the size of 11 x 9' distributed and pasted by the respondent in the constituency were 20,000, and some posters are carrying the print line of Shivalik Offset (P) Ltd., Panipat, and other identical in nature without the print line have been printed and published from the same negative. The total cost incurred by the respondent on the printing, paper and distribution of 20,000 posters on a conservative estimate is not less than Rs. 20,000/-. Copy of the posters with printing line and without the print line are attached as Annexures P-3 and P4 respectively. It is then finally urged that respondent has thus incurred expenditure of Rs. 37,000/- which has not been shown in his election expenses return.
24. The allegations made in this para are vague and do not furnish the full particulars which are required to be given in the case of a corrupt practice. At the first instance, it has been said that respondent distributed/pasted 3000 posters. Besides, no particulars are given as to who got prepared or purchased these posters and how, where and by whom these posters were pasted. For the other 3000 posters it has been simply stated that the expenses incurred by the respondent on paper, printing and distribution of 3000 posters have not been shown by the respondent, Again the required details have not been given regarding these 3000 posters. The same particulars are missing with regard to the other 20000 posters. Even scant information is not available to connect these posters with the respondent whether he purchased those posters or somebody else purchased them, for whom and from whom. On a scrutiny of the averments in the election petition, it is evident that it is not pleaded as to who distributed the pamphlets when they were distributed where they were distributed and to whom they were distributed in whose presence they were distributed etc. It has not even been pleaded that any particular person with the consent of the respondent or his election agent, distributed the said pamphlets.
25. Similarly, in para No. 11, it has been stated that respondent has also got 50 banners printed from Hans Painter, opposite Head Office, Kunjpura Road, Karnal which he has displayed/ used during the election in furtherance of his election prospectus. Again vague allegation has been made that the posters in the constituency have been seen by all and sundry including the petitioner.
26. Again the details of purchase of these banners by whom, from whom or on whose behalf etc. is not forthcoming.
27. In para No. 12 it is averred that respondent got about 25000 to 30000 party flags made with symbols on cloth/plastic which he has used in the constituency during the election and has incurred an expenditure of Rs. 50,000/- on the preparation of party flags on cloth/plastics.
28. Again the petitioner has not given the particulars as to from whom the respondent got these party flags prepared. If these were prepared by him on his behalf, the details for that purpose are not forthcoming. Only a vague allegation has been made.
29. In para No. 13, it is stated that respondent sought permission to open offices at Assandh, Madlauda, Ballah and Munak but he has not sought permission to open offices at Salwan and Nara. It is then alleged that the respondent opened election offices at Salwan and Nara and also used loudspeakers at these election offices from 7-4-1996 to 25-4-1996 and he has neither shown the hire charges for the office opened at Salwan and Nara nor the expenditure incurred on use of loudspeakers at the two places from 1-4-1996 to 25-4-1996 have been shown. It is then stated that the rental at Salwan is not less than Rs. 500/- and Rs. 300/- at Nara. It is again stated in a mechanical manner that the respondent also incurred expenses on the use of loudspeakers at the election offices at Salwan and Nara from 7-4-1996 to 25-4-1996 at the rate of Rs. 120/- per loudspeaker per day at one place and thus, he incurred an expenditure of Rs. 4560/-.
30. This averment is again vague. It does not give the details as to who had hired these loudspeakers, from whom, when they were used and what is the evidence for that. Information regarding each office, where from whom and where it was opened whether it was taken on rent or it was free, no particulars regarding this are coming forthwith.
31. In para No. 14, it has been stated that the respondent had set up tents outside the polling booths at Salwan, Ballah, Nara, Munak, Assandh, Madlauda, Gagsina, Josi, Kavi, Dharamgarh, Vaisar, Jaisinghpur, Rairkalan. The tent constituted one shamyana, two chairs and one table. It is then stated that the tents were fixed at six places at Assandh, three places at Salwan and two places at Ballah, 2 places at Munak and one place at Madlauda, Nara, Josi, Kavi, Dharamgarh, Vaisar, Rair Kalan and Jaisinghpur. Shri Ram Singh at Gagsina, Shri Chander Bhan at Josi, Shri Rajesh Kumar at Kavi, Ramphal Sarpanch at Dharamgarh and Capt. Tara Chand at Jaisinghpur amongst others have seen the tents fixed up at these places. It is then stated that the petitioner had toured the constituency on 27-4-1996, visited the polling booths and also witnessed the pitching of tents, chairs, tables etc. According to the petitioner, the respondent had shown an expenditure of Rs. 750/- which is quite insufficient and incorrect. The respondent has spent more than Rs. 2000/- instead of Rs. 750/- on the carriage and the use of material on 27-4-1996.
32. It has not been stated in this para as to from whom these tents which included shamyana, chairs and tables, were taken by the respondent whether they were taken on rent or they were supplied by any political party or by some friends of the respondent or they were set up by the common people of places. It does not connect the respondent that he paid for these tents, shamyana, chairs and tables etc. No material particulars are coming out that an expenditure was incurred by him on these tents etc. Essential material facts which could prove and connect the respondent with these tents are missing.
33. In para No. 15 it has been stated that respondent had organised three public meetings on 13-4-1996, 16-4-1996 and 23-4-1996 addressed by Shri O.P. Chautala, Shri Chander Shekhar and Ch. Devi Lal at Kavi, Salwan and Ballah, respectively. Stage with shamyana and loudspeakers were installed. About 300 chairs were arranged and about 40-50 Daris were spread for the sitting of audience, and after the conclusion of the meeting tea and snacks were arranged by the respondent for about 200 people. It is then alleged that the respondent incurred the expenditure on these public meetings to the tune of Rs. 3000/- which included the expenditures on furniture, Daris, Shamyanas, loudspeakers etc. and this expenditure has not been shown by the respondent in his election expenses return.
34. This allegation is again vague. No particulars are coming out as to whether anything was spent by the respondent on these articles; whether these articles were provided by the friends or some political party or from the villagers where these meetings were held and if at all the respondent had incurred expenses on this, then at least some details were required to be given to prove that the expenditure was made by the respondent on these articles.
35. In the same manner, a vague allegation has been made that on 16-4-1996 a public meeting at Salwan was addressed by Shri Chander Shekhar, Ex-Prime Minister of India, and an expenditure of Rs. 5000/- was incurred on that. Again as stated above, no particular, much less any detail, are coming out as to how the respondent is connected with the expenditure.
36. Similarly, again it is stated that on 23-4-1996 another public meeting was arranged and organised by the respondent on 23-4-1996 at Ballah. Tea and snacks were arranged after the meeting and for that meeting 200 chairs, 50 Daris, were used and an expenditure of Rs. 4000/- was incurred by the respondent which has not been shown in the election expenses.
37. As stated above, this allegation is again vague.
38. In para No. 16, it has been stated that the respondent spent Rs. 1350/ on the service of 450 persons by packets of milk and distribution of 25 kgs. Gulab Jamuns amongst all the peoples present in the counting hall except the counting agents of the candidates. According to him, he spent on all these articles about Rs. 2350/-.
39. This averment made in this para is again vague and it does not furnish any particulars to connect the respondent with the expenditure incurred on these eatables.
40. In the end, in para No. 17, it has been averred that the respondent, has, thus, incurred an expenditure of Rs. 3,40,255/- on his election from the date of nomination paper to the date of result, whereas, he has filed the return for Rs. 80557-31 paise which was excess of the expenditure allowed.
41. As has been stated above, all the allegations regarding the corrupt practice made by the petitioner in the abovesaid paras are vague, general and the requisite facts, details and particulars of each corrupt practice with exactitude, have not been furnished by the petitioner.
42. As has been settled by the Supreme Court by a catena of authorities that an election can be questioned under the statute as provided by Section 80 on the grounds as contained in Section 100 of the Act. Section 83 lays down a mandatory provision in providing that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts and set-forth full particulars of corrupt practice. The pleadings are regulated by Section 83 and it makes it obligatory on the election-petitioner to give the requisite facts, details and particulars of each corrupt practice with exactitude. If the election petition fails to make a ground under Section 100 of the Act it must fail at the threshold. Allegations of corrupt practice are in the nature of criminal charges, it is necessary that there should be no vagueness in the allegations so that the returned candidate may know the case he has to met. If the allegations are vague and general and the particulars of corrupt practice are not stated in the pleadings, the trial of the election cannot proceed for want of cause of action. The emphasis of law is to a void a fishing and rowing inquiry.
43. Each and every ground of corrupt practice has been discussed above. Neither any details of incurring expenses or authorising it have been stated therein. It would be noticed that hiring or procuring of a vehicle by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with his consent is most essential ingredient of the corrupt practice.
44. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this election-petition relates to Section 77 only which deals with account of election expenses incurred by a candidate in his election and Section 123(6) which deals with incurring or authorising of expenditure in contravention of Section 77. The learned counsel further submits that the authorities cited by the other side, do not relate to Section 123(6) but to other sub-sections of Section 123. Thus, they are not fully applicable in the present case. As for example, according to him, in Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal's case (AIR 1987 SC 1577) (supra), only para Nos. 19, .20 and 21 relate to Section 123(6) but no other -part of the judgment. Thus, the averments made with regard to corrupt practice other than the one as contained in sub-para 6 of Section 123, cannot be read against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that a paragraph should be read as a whole and not in parts to construe its proper meaning.
45. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the paras in which the allegation of corrupt practice, has been made, if read as a whole, are not vague. They are clear and make out definite allegation of corrupt practice.
46. I do not find any force in these contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Most of the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the respondent relate to corrupt practice as mentioned under Section 123(6) of the Act. Even if some of the authorities cited relate to some other subsections of Section 123 of the Act, the principle deducted from these authorities relate to a corrupt practice and these general principles relating to corrupt practice can be applied in the case in hand also. Moreover, even the obiter dicta of the Supreme Court relating to an alleged corrupt practice can be taken into account.
47. All the abovesaid paras relating to corrupt practice as discussed above, even read as a whole, do not furnish even a single ground wherein the allegation of any corrupt practice cannot be termed as vague, deficient in material particulars.
48. In Dhartipakar's case (AIR 1987 SC 1577) (supra) it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under :--
'On a combined reading of Ss. 81, 83, 86 and 87 of the Act, it is apparent that those paras of the Act, it is apparent that those paras of an election petition which do not disclose any cause of action, are liable to be struck off under Order VI, Rule 16, as the Court is empowered at any stage of the proceedings to strike or delete pleading which is unnecessary, scandulous, frivolous or vexatious or which may tend to prejudice, embarrass, or delay the fair trial of the petition or suit. It is the duty of the Court to examine the plaint and it need not wait till the defendant files written statement and points out the defects. If the Court on examination of the plaint or the election petition finds that it docs not disclose any cause of action it would be justified in striking out the pleadings. Order VI, Rule 16 itself empowers the Court to strike out pleadings at any stage of the proceedings which may even be before the filing of the written statement by the respondent or commencement of the trial. If the Court is satisfied that the election petition does not make out any cause of action and that the trial would prejudice, embarrass and delay the proceedings, the Court need not wait for the filing of the written statement instead it can proceed to hear the preliminary objections and strike out the pleadings. If after striking out the pleadings the Court finds that no triable issues remain to be considered, it has power to reject the election petition under Order VI, Rule 11.'
49. It has been held in the aforesaid judgment that it is obligatory on the election-petitioner to give the requisite facts, details and particulars of each corrupt practice with exactitude. If the election petition fails to make out a ground under Section 100 of the Act, i t must fail at the threshold. Allegation of corrupt practice are in the nature of criminal charges. It is necessary that there should be no vagueness in the allegations so that the returned candidate may know the case, he has to meet. If the allegations are vague and general and the particulars of corrupt practice are not stated in the pleadings the trial of the election-petition cannot proceed for want of action. Emphasis of law is to avoid a fishing and rowing inquiry. It is, therefore, necessary for the Court to scrutinise the pleadings relating to corrupt practice in a strict manner.
50. Further guidelines have been given in the aforesaid authority as to how the allegations of corrupt practice made by the election-petitioner have to be scrutinised.
51. In Azhar Hussain's case (AIR 1986 SC 1253) (supra), it has been held that it is settled law that the omission of single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action and that an election petition without the material facts relating to a corrupt practice is not an election petition at all. The contention made by the counsel before the Hon' ble Judges that even if the election petition is liable to be dismissed ultimately it should be so dismissed only after recording evidence and not at the threshold, was held to be thoroughly misconceived and untenable.
52. It has been held in Daulat Ram Chauhan's case (AIR 1984 SC 621) (supra) that the allegations of corrupt practice must be clear and specific and should not be left for the Court to infer by adopting process of involved reasoning. It is necessary to reproduce the relevant portion of this judgment of the Supreme Court which reads as under (Para 18):--
'In order to constitute corrupt practices the necessary particulars, statement of facts and essential ingredients that must be contained in the pleadings are :--
(1) Direct and detailed nature of corrupt practice as defined in the Act,
(2) details of every important particular must be stated giving the time, place, names of persons, use of words and expressions etc.,
(3) it must clearly appear from the allegations that the corrupt practices alleged were indulged in by (a) the candidate himself, (b) his authorised election agent or any other person with his express or implied consent.'
53. In Manohar Joshi's case (AIR 1996 SC 796) (supra), it has been held that general averments deficient in requisite pleadings of all constituent parts of corrupt practice, do not constitute a pleading of full cause of action and, therefore, had to be ignored and struck out in accordance with Order 6, Rule 16, CPC.
54. In Ramakant Mayekar's case (AIR 1996 SC 826) (supra), regarding pleadings relating to the video cassettes, it has been held as under (Para 30):--
'This state of pleading relating even to the video cassettes. When the video cassettes or its transcript were not produced along with the election petition or its copy furnished with the copy of the election petition to the appellant, is a serious defect in the pleading which once again has been totally overlooked at the trial of this election petition. This again has resulted in raising an issue for which the requisite pleadings were not there and then admitting considerable evidence which is irrelevant and inadmissible. We have considered this question at length in the connected Civil Appeal No. 4973 of 1993-Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil decided today reported in 1996 AIR SCW 145. For the same reasons, the entire issue relating to the corrupt practice based on the video cassettes has to be excluded from consideration.'
55. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court and in view of the detailed discussion of averments made in paras 6 to 17 of the petition, I find that the requisite facts, details and particulars of each corrupt practice with exactitude are missing in the aforesaid paras. The allegations made are vague and general and the requisite particulars of corrupt practice are not stated in the pleadings and the allegations made in different paras of the petition do not disclose any cause of action and as such they are liable to be struck off under Order 6, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The election petition does not make any cause of action as no triable issues remain to be considered as commanded by various authorities of the Supreme Court. I, thus, allow the objection taken by the respondent in the preliminary issues. Both the preliminary issues, are, thus, decided in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner.
56. In view of my discussion made above, it is evident that paras 6 to 17 of the election petition are liable to be struck off being vague and deficient in material facts under Order 6, Rule 16, CPC. I, thus, strike off these paras under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC. Consequently, this petition is dismissed under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC, with costs.