Case Note & Summary
The proceeding arose from an election petition filed under the Representation of People Act, 1951, challenging the election of the returned candidate from 88 Loha Assembly Constituency in Maharashtra. The petitioner, a Shiv Sena candidate, alleged that the respondent no.1, belonging to Nationalist Congress Party, resorted to corrupt practices including tampering of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and improper reception of votes, thereby materially affecting the election result. The polling was held on 13.10.2009, and the result was declared on 22.10.2009. Respondent no.2, the Returning Officer, was later deleted from the array of parties. Respondent no.1 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the election petition on the grounds that it did not disclose a cause of action, lacked material facts and particulars of corrupt practice, and was vague and ambiguous. The petitioner opposed the application, contending that the petition complied with all statutory requirements and contained sufficient pleadings. The court examined the averments in the election petition. It noted that the petitioner had pleaded a detailed sequence of events, including the presence of respondent no.1 and his election agent with the EVM engineer at a government guest house, allegations of a conspiracy to manipulate EVMs using Trojan horse technology, and specific booth-wise details where votes cast for the petitioner were allegedly counted in favour of respondent no.1. The petition also stated that the margin of victory was 1,523 votes and that the corrupt practice had materially affected the result. The court held that at the stage of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11, only the plaint allegations are to be seen, and the defence cannot be looked into. It observed that material facts are the basic facts necessary to constitute a cause of action, and the petition need not contain evidence. The court found that the petition contained a concise statement of material facts and full particulars of the alleged corrupt practice, including names, dates, places, and the modus operandi. It concluded that the petition disclosed a cause of action and could not be rejected. Accordingly, the application was dismissed, and the election petition was directed to proceed further.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Pleadings in Election Petition - Section 83(1) Representation of People Act, 1951 - Material facts and particulars - The petition must contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies, and full particulars of any corrupt practice alleged. At the stage of rejection under Order VII Rule 11, the court only examines the plaint allegations, not the truth or falsity, and if they disclose a cause of action, the petition cannot be dismissed. Held that the petition contained necessary averments regarding tampering of EVMs and improper reception of votes, thus disclosing a cause of action (Paras 18-22). B) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Cause of action - The power to reject a plaint is drastic and must be exercised cautiously, only where the plaint does not disclose a cause of action or is barred by law. The court cannot look into evidence or conduct a mini trial at this stage. The petition is to be read as a whole. Held that the election petition could not be rejected as it contained sufficient factual foundation for the corrupt practice claims (Paras 18-21, 24). C) Election Law - Corrupt Practices - Section 123(8) read with Section 100(1)(b)(d) Representation of People Act, 1951 - Tampering of EVMs and Booth Capturing - Allegations of conspiracy to manipulate EVMs using Trojan horse technology and improper reception of votes are specific corrupt practices pleaded. The petitioner provided details like names, dates, places, and methods, which constitute material facts. Held that these allegations, if proved, could materially affect the election result, hence petition not summarily rejected (Paras 8-16, 22-24). D) Election Law - Material Effect on Election Result - Section 100(1)(d) Representation of People Act, 1951 - Requirement to plead that result was materially affected - The petition alleged that due to tampering and improper reception, the result was materially affected, with a margin of 1,523 votes and specific booth-wise details. Held that the pleading sufficiently alleged material effect, and the question of actual proof is a matter for trial (Paras 16, 23-24).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the election petition filed by the petitioner challenging the election of respondent no.1 discloses a cause of action and material facts as required under Section 83 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, and whether it is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the application Exhibit 8 filed by respondent no.1 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding that the election petition discloses cause of action and material facts, and therefore it cannot be rejected at the threshold. The petition is to be proceeded further.
Law Points
- Election petition pleading requirements
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Section 83 Representation of People Act
- 1951
- material facts and cause of action
- summary dismissal of election petition
- corrupt practice allegations
- tampering of EVMs
- improper reception of votes
