High Court of Judicature at Bombay Nagpur Bench examines applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of election petitions for non-compliance with the Representation of People Act, 1951. Court considers whether election petitions filed under Section 80 lack material facts and proper verification, and whether defects are curable after limitation.

Election petitions filed under Section 80 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, challenging the election of the respondent to the Maharashtra Legislative Council from Nagpur Local Authorities Constituency, and subsequent applications by the respondent under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the petitions for non-compliance with mandatory requirements of the Act.

Respondent Rajendra Mulak sought rejection of the election petitions on grounds of lack of material facts, defective verification, non-supply of true copy, and non-compliance with Sections 80, 83, 86 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

The election petitions alleged various irregularities in the voting process, including photographing of ballot papers, multiple persons entering voting compartments, and display of votes, which were claimed to have materially affected the election outcome.

Whether the election petition lacks material facts and fails to disclose a cause of action as required under the Representation of People Act, 1951. Whether the election petition is incomplete because the compact disc (CD) at Annexure 11 is not an original and forms an integral part of the pleadings. Whether the annexures to the election petition are properly verified in accordance with Section 83 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. Whether the copy of the election petition supplied to the respondent is a true copy as required by law. Whether the affidavit and verification accompanying the election petition satisfy the legal requirements under the Representation of People Act, 1951, and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Whether defects in verification and affidavit can be cured by amendment after the expiry of the limitation period for filing an election petition.

Respondent argued that material facts linking the alleged irregularities to the respondent or showing that the election was materially affected were not pleaded, thus no cause of action exists. The CD filed as Annexure 11 was not an original certified copy but a truncated or doctored version, making the election petition incomplete and without proper verification. The verification of the annexures and the affidavit did not comply with Section 83 of the 1951 Act; the copy served was not a true copy as it lacked necessary endorsements and the notary's certification. Defects in verification and affidavit could not be cured after the limitation period, as per settled law, and the application for amendment (Civil Application 679/2010) admitted such defects. Reliance was placed on various Supreme Court decisions emphasizing the mandatory nature of pleading material facts, proper verification, and supplying true copies in election petitions under the Representation of People Act, 1951.

1. Challenge in both these Election Petitions is to election of one Shri Rajendra Mulak who is Respondent in Election Petition No. 1 and Election Petition No. 2 of 2010. Election Petitions are under Section 80 of Representation of People Act, 1951 and election is to Maharashtra Legislative Council from Nagpur Local Authorities Constituency. 3. Briefly stated following are the grounds of attack by Respondent 1: (A) Material facts are not pleaded and there is no cause of action. (B) Election Petitions are incomplete as CD at Annexure 11 is not an original CD i.e. Compact Disc. (C) Annexures along with Election Petitions are not verified as required by Section 83 of 1951 Act. (D) Copy supplied to Respondent is not a 'true copy' as material certificates and endorsements available on original are missing in it. (E) The affidavit and verification is not as per legal requirements, and (F) Exhibit 9 i.e. Civil Application 679/2010, moved in Election Petition 1/2010 to cure some of these defects admits existence thereof and these defects cannot be allowed to be cured after expiry of period of limitation for filing an Election Petition.

The election to the Maharashtra Legislative Council from Nagpur Local Authorities Constituency was held and result declared on January 21, 2010. There were only two contestants; the respondent Rajendra Mulak won by a margin of four votes. Election Petition No. 1 of 2010 was filed by Ashok Mankar (the losing candidate) and Election Petition No. 2 of 2010 was filed by Anil Sole (a voter). Written statements were filed. Respondent Rajendra Mulak filed Civil Application No. 415 of 2010 in Election Petition No. 1 and Civil Application No. 456 of 2010 in Election Petition No. 2 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the petitions. Petitioner Ashok Mankar also filed Civil Application No. 679 of 2010 seeking leave to amend the verification. The High Court heard arguments on these applications on July 13, 2010, and reserved judgment, pronouncing it on August 2, 2010.

• Representation of People Act, 1951: 80, 83, 86, 94, 100, 123
• Conduct of Election Rules, 1961: 39, 56, 70, 73
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 7 Rule 11, Order 6 Rule 15