Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dr. Rameshkumar Bapuraoji Gajbe, contested the election to the 17th Lok Sabha from the Gadchiroli-Chimur Constituency as a candidate of the Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi. He lost to respondent 3, Ashok Mahadeo Nete, who secured 5,19,968 votes against the petitioner's 1,11,468 votes out of 11,42,636 votes polled. The petitioner filed an election petition seeking a declaration that the election of respondent 3 was null and void on the ground of non-compliance with election laws. The sole allegation was that there was a discrepancy of 62 votes between the votes polled and the final tally. Respondent 3 filed an application for rejection of the petition under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC read with Sections 83(1), 86(1), and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, arguing that the petition failed to disclose a cause of action. The court examined the averments and found that the petition did not specify which provisions of law were violated or how the alleged discrepancy materially affected the result of the election. The court held that vague and general allegations of non-compliance without particulars do not constitute a cause of action. The court dismissed the election petition, holding that it was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Cause of Action - Rejection of Election Petition - Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC, Sections 83(1), 86(1), 100(1)(d)(iv) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - The petitioner alleged a discrepancy of 62 votes in the final tally but failed to specify which provisions of law were violated or how the result was materially affected - The court held that the petition did not disclose a cause of action and was liable to be rejected - Held that vague allegations of non-compliance without particulars do not constitute a cause of action (Paras 1-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the election petition discloses a cause of action and whether it is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC read with Sections 83(1), 86(1) and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Final Decision
The election petition is dismissed as it does not disclose a cause of action and is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC read with Sections 83(1), 86(1), and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Law Points
- Cause of action
- Election petition
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Section 83(1) RP Act
- Section 86(1) RP Act
- Section 100(1)(d)(iv) RP Act
- Non-compliance with election laws
- Rejection of plaint
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (11) 139
ELECTION PETITION NO. 06 OF 2019
Shri N.B. Rathod, Ms. Neerja Chaubey, Shri Sumant Deopujari, Shri Sunil Manohar, Shri Atharva S. Manohar, Mrs. Prajakta S. Chaudhari
Dr. Rameshkumar Bapuraoji Gajbe
The Election Commission of India, Returning Officer, Mr. Ashok Mahadeo Nete
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Election petition challenging the validity of the election of respondent 3 to the 17th Lok Sabha from Gadchiroli-Chimur Constituency.
Remedy Sought
Declaration that the election of respondent 3 is null and void for non-compliance with election laws.
Filing Reason
Alleged discrepancy of 62 votes in the final tally of votes polled.
Issues
Whether the election petition discloses a cause of action.
Whether the petition is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC read with Sections 83(1), 86(1), and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that there was a discrepancy of 62 votes in the final tally, indicating non-compliance with election laws.
Respondent 3 argued that the petition fails to disclose a cause of action and should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC.
Ratio Decidendi
An election petition must disclose a cause of action by specifying the provisions of law violated and how the result was materially affected. Vague allegations of non-compliance without particulars do not constitute a cause of action and the petition is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner, who contested the election to the 17th Lok Sabha from the Gadchiroli-Chimur Constituency as the candidate of the Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi, and lost the electoral battle, is seeking a declaration that the election of respondent 3 is null and void for 'non-compliance with the laws'.
Respondent 3, who is declared elected, is seeking rejection of the election petition on the premise that the petition, even if the averments therein are taken at face value, fails to disclose cause of action and entails rejection in view of the provisions of Sections 83(1), 86(1) and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ('Act' for short) and Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Code ('Code' for short).
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Election Petition No. 06 of 2019 challenging the election of respondent 3. Respondent 3 filed an application for rejection of the petition under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC. The court heard arguments and reserved judgment on 03-10-2019, pronouncing it on 25-11-2019.
Acts & Sections
- Representation of the People Act, 1951: 83(1), 86(1), 100(1)(d)(iv)
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order VII Rule 11(a)
