400

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 17, 20OJ/KARTIKA 26, 1923

[PART II-Sue. 3(iii)]

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TIRATH SINGH

THAKUR

ELECTION PETITION

NO. 21/1999.

BETWEEN:

A. Siddaraju,

Major,

R/o No." 2358.

J'Block, Adichunchanagiri Road,

Kuvempunagav,

MYSORE.

PETITIONER

(By Sri. G. Gangi Rcddy, Adv.,)

AND :—

1. Returning Officer,

No. 15, Chamarajanagar

Loksabha Parliamentury Constituency,

Chnmarajangar, And the

Deputy Commissioner,

Chamarajanng. r Dist.

2. V. Srinivasa Prasad,

S/o Venkataiah, M.P., Major,

R/o No. 91, Bheemasandra,

7th Main, Jayalakshmipuram,

MYSORE-12.

3. H. Govindaiali,

Deputy Registrar of Evaluation.

Karnaiaka Open University,

Manasagangotri.

4. M.K. Kempa Siddaiah,

Major,

Mo. 412,

4th 'A' Main Road.

3rd Stage, Basaveswaranagar,

BANGALORE-79.

5. Vicharavadi Mantalingaiah,

President,

A.J.M.S.,

Gandhinagar,

MYSORE

RESPONDENTS

(By Sri G.N. Shantaraju, for

M/S Kesvy & Co., forR-2:

Election Petition is filed u/s. 81 of the Represen-

tation of People Act, 1951, praying to call for the

production of the ballot papers including the rejected

votes and pass for orders, for recount as deemedjfit,

in the interest of justice etc.,

This Petition coming on for hearing, the same

having been heard and reserved for pronouncement

of order, the Court made the following order:

ORDER

In the last general election to the

Parliament

from No. 15, Cbamarajanagar Parliamentary Cons-

tituency, Sri V Srinivasa Prasad-Respondcnt No. 2

in this Petition was declared elected having secured

3,11,547 votes as against 2,95,401 polled by the

petitioner.

Aggrieved, the petitioner has in the

present Election Petition sought a declaration to the

effect that the election of the 2nd respondent is void

besides a further declaration that he stands duly

elected

from

the

said

Constituency.

The

petitioner's case entirely rests on the alleged improper

reception and rejection of votes within the meaning

of Sec. 100(d) (iii) of the Representation of the People

Act, 1951, which has, according to him, materially

affecled the result of the election. Broadly speaking,

the allegations made in the Election Petition suggest

that the result of the election was affected materially

by reason of rejection of a large number of votes

that had been cast in favour of the petitioner besides .

improper mixing of votes polled in favour of petitioner

with

those polled by the 2nd respondent.

The

Petition also contains allegations of irregularities in

the counting of voles besides suggesting ihat ihe

rejection of the votes by the Returning Officers of

the Assembly Constituencies was not

permissible

1 shall presently refer to the contents of the Petition

in detail. Suffice it to say that the Petition does not

make any allegation regarding the commission of

any corrupt practice by either the successful candidate

or any other candidate for that matter.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, as

many as ten issues were framed by this Court by

order dated 11th of August 2000. Issues No. 1 to 5,

which were purely legal in nature and in regard to

which no evidence was offered by the parties were

treated as preliminary issues. They read as under:

"(1) Whether the

Returning

Officer

R-1,

is liable to be deleted from the array of Respon-

dents as stated in T.A. No. I, filed by the second

Respondent?

(2) Whether the averments made in paras 2

to 22 of the Election Petition, arc unnecessary,

vexatious and frivolous hence liable to be struck

off?

(3) Whether the Election Petition does not

disclose any cause of action and is therefore liable

to be rejected?

(4) Whether the Election Petition has not

been verified properly and is liable to be dismissed

on that ground?

(5) Whether the Election Petitioner has not

complied with Section 81(3) of the Representa-

tion

of People Act,?

If so,

whether the;

petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground?"

401

!SSU£ NO. (1)

Tt was argued by Mr Shantaraju, 'earned Counsel

for Respondent No. 2, that the Returning Officer is

neither a necessary nor a proper party to the present

proceedings.

Ho contended thut Sec. 82 of the

Representation of People Act, 1951 was sn exhaustive

provision and did not permit any porson other than

those referred to therein as party respondent to an

Ejection Petilion. The Returning Officer-Responded

No. 1 was therefore improperly joined as e party

and deserved to be deleted from the array of respon-

dents.

Reliance in support was placed by

the

learned Counsel upon the decisions of the Supreme

Court in JYOT[ BASU AND OTHERS Vs. DEBI

GHOSAL AND OTHERS (AIR

1982 SC 983}

B. SUNDARA RAMI REDDY Vs. ELECTION

COMMISSION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [1991

Supp (2) SCC 624] and SUBHAN KHAN Vs. J H

PATEL AND OTHERS [1995 (3) KLJ 559J.

In Jyoti Basu's case (supra), the Apex Court

declared that no one may be joined as a parly to an

Ejection Petition otherwise than as provided by

Sections 82 and 86(4) of the Act

The Court held

that betides Sections 82 and 86(4) of the Act, there

is no other provision dealing with the question as to

who may be joined as respondents and that while a

candidate not already a respondent may seek his

addition and may be joined as a respondent, any

other person cannot do so even

if allegations of

corrupt practice are made against him. The contest

of an election petition, declared the Court, was con-

fined to the candidates at the election excluding a!!

others.

The Court observed: —

"The ring is closed to all except the petitioner

and the candidates at the election. If such is ihc

design

Hie

statute,

how

can

the

uotion of 'proper parties' enter the picture

all?

We think that tbe

concept

'proper

parties' is and must remain alien to an election

dispute under the Representation of the People

Act, 1951. Only those may be joined as respon-

dents to an election petition who tire mentioned

in S.82 and S.86(4) and no others.

However,

desirable and expadient it may appear to be none

else shall be joined as respondents."

Even in Sundara. Rami Reddy's case relied upon

by Mr. Sh antharaju, the Court reiterated that the

concept of a 'proper party' is must remain alien under

the Representation of the People Act, 195J.

The

Court held:-

"The concept of 'proper party' is and must

remain alien to an election dispute undor the

Representation of the People Act, 1951

Only

those may be joined as respondents to an election

petition who are mentioned^;n Section K2 and.

Scjlion S6;l) .I'tJ..IM oi'nen

Hnvjver desirable

and expedient it may appear to be, none else

shall be joined as respondents."

To the same effect is the decision of this Court

in Subhan Khan's case, in which Krishna mocrtby,

J., while examining a similar question expressed

doubts about P A SHRECDHAR SHANAI Vs.

CHIEF ELECTRORAL OFFICER [FLR 1990 KAR

2622] stating the correct legal

position after the

declaration of the law by the Supremo Court in B

Sundara Rama ReddyVcase (supra)

I am cons-

cious of a recent decision of a Simple Bench of this

Court in K S ESHWARAPPA Vs. H M CHANDRA-

SHEKARAPPA AND OTHERS [ILR 2001 KAR

1878], in which the Court appears to have relied upon

the decision in P A Shrecdhara Shanaj's case while

holding that a petition in which a party other than

those permitted by Sec 82 of the Act is impleadcd

cannot be dismissed on the ground of misjoindor only.

That decision eanuot in my opinion be understood to

be laying down a proposition contrary to what has

been held by the Supreme Court in Jyoti Basu and

Sundara Rama Reddy's cases (supra).

The ratio

of the decision simply is that while failure to implead

a party who is a necessary party under Sec. 82 may

be fatal, the improper joining of ;i paity outside the

requirement of that piovision cannot entail dismissal

of the petition.

The argument of Mr Gangi Reddy

that the Returning Officer for the election was a

proper party having regard to the nature of the alle-

gations made in regard to the counting of votes

must accordingly fail and is hereby rejected.

ISSUES NOS. 2 AND 3

It was contented by Mr. Shantaraju, Counsel

appearing for the elected candidate that the Election

Petition docs not disclose any cause of action and

was therefore liable to be rejected in terms of Order

7 Rule 11 of the C P C . He submitted that Sec. 83

of the Representation of the People Act requires

every Election Petition to contain a concise statement

of the material facts on which the petitioner placed

reliance. The averments made in the present Peti-

tion did not, argued the learned Counsel, satisfy tho

said mandatory requirement and therefore failed to

disdose any cause of action rendeiing the Petition

liable to be rejected at the threshold.

On behalf of the Petitioner, Mr. Gangireddy

argued that the averments madejn the Petition were

sufficient to disclose a full cause of action and that

the particulars that may have been initially deficient

may be allowed to be incorporated by way of an

amendment, for which purpose the

petitioner has

made a separate application-

He argued

that the

contents of the petition sufficiently satisfied the

requirement of law which could not be thrown out

at the threshold.

402

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER J7, 2001/KARTIKA 26, 1923

[PART If—Sue. 3(Hi)J

Sec. 83 of the Representation of the People

Act inter uJia provides that an Election Petition shall

contain a concise statement of material /acts

which

the petitioner

relies. Judicial pronounce-

ments as to what constitutes "material fuels" and

what is ihe effect of non furnishing of such facts are a

legion.

Reference to all those decisions is in my

opinion unnecessary for tho legal position is autho-

. ritatively settled by the decisions of the Supreme

. Court to which I shall birefly refer.

In SAMANT N BALAKR1SHNA ETC. Vs.

GEORGE FERNANDEZ AND OTHERS ETC.,

[AIR 1969 SC 1201], the Supreme Court held that

Sec. 83 of the Act was mandatory and that a Peti-

tion, which did not contain material facts was not

election petition at all. The Court observed tha

material facts constitute the cause of action foT the

filing of the Petition and that omission of a single

material fact would amount to an incomplete cause

of action.

The following passage from the decision

is apposite: —

"Section 83 is mandatory and requires the

election petition to contain first a concise state-

ment of'.material facts and then requires the fullest

possible particulars. 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 1he oppo-

site party understand the cause he will have to

meel. There may be some overlapping between

material facts and particulars but Lhe to arc quite

distinct

An election petition without the material

facts relating to a corrupt practice is no election

petition, at all. A pethion which merely cites the

sections cannot be said to disclose a cause of

action where the allegation is the making of a

false statement."

5ITENDRA

BAHADUR

SINGH

Vs.

KRISHNA BEHARI AND OTHERS [AIR 1970

SC 276], the Court was dealing with the question of

scrutiny of ballot papers in terms of Sec. 92 of the

Act read with Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election

Rules. The significance of material Tacts was noticed

by the Court in the following words :

"The basic requirements to b; satisfied before

an election tribunal can permit the inspection of

ballot papers, are (I) that the petition for setting

aside the election must contain an adeflUjite state-

ment of the material facts on which the petitioner

relief, in support of his case and {2) ihe tribunal

must b? pvima facie satisfied that in order to

decide the dispute and to do complete justice

b,'tween the parties, inspection of the ballot papers

is necessary.

The material facts required to be

stated are those facia which can be considered as

materials supporting the

alkgatior.u ivu.d*:."'

The Court further held that if the election peti-

tioner gavo some figures regarding rejection of valid

votes and acceptance of invalid votes, the same must

not b-i considered as an adequate statement of facts

if the petitioner has not disclosed in the Petition the

basis on which ha arrived at those figures. The Court

obsevercd :

"In other words they must be such facts as

to attbrd a basis for the allegations made in the

petition.

If an election potitionc in his election

petition gives some figures as to the rejection of

valid votes and acceptance of invalid votes, the

same must not be considered as an adequate

statement of material facts when the petitioner

has not disclosed in the Paition the basis on

which he arrived at those figures. His bald

assertion that he get those figures from tht count-

ing agents ol" the unsuccessful candidate cannot

afford the necessaty basis."

In BHELIRAM BHALAIK Vs. JA1 BEHARI

LAL KHACHI AND ANOTHER [AIR 1975 SC

288], the Court held that a Court trying the election

petition would be justified in ordering a recount or

pjimitting inspection of the ballot papers only where

all the material facts on which the allegations of

irregularity or illegality in counting are founded arc

pleaded adequately in ihe election petition.

Mere

allegations tha; the petitioner suspects or believes

that there has b^cn improper reception, refusal or

rejection of votes or there have

been

irrgu'aiities

in tho counting of bjllot papers will not b; sufficient

to support an order of recounting,

To the same effect is the decision of the Supreme

Court in BHABHI Vs. SHEO GOVIND

AND

OTHERS [AIR 1975 SC 2117], in which the Court

held that the allegations made against the elected

eandidaie must be clear and specific and must be

supported by adequate statement of material facts.

In UDHAV SINGH Vs. MADHAV RAO SCINDIA

[AIR 1976 SC 744], the Court declared that failure

to plead even a single material fact leads to an in-

complete cause of action and incomplete allegations

of such a charge are liable to be struck off under

Order VIRule J6 of the C.P.C

If ihe petition is

baseW sb*ely wv alterations which suffer from lack

of material facts, •thesame is liable to be summarily

rejected for want of a cause of aciiou.

403

In AZHAH. HUSSA1N Vs. RAJIV GANDHI

(AIR 1986 SC 1253], one of the questions Llxut arose

for considerations was whether :hc petition could be

rejected on the ground that it did not contain jnaterial

("acts keeping in view the fact that S ••:. 86 of t k Act,

which authorises dismissal of an 1_-l,;tioii p-tili'in in

certain contingencies did not p.-rmit dismissal on

ihc ground of violation of S^c 83. R/'pclliiv: the

argument that such a Petition could not be dismissed

under Sec. 86 of the Act, the court observed:

"An election petition can bo and must be

dismissed under the provisions of Civil P.C. if

the mandatory requirements enjoined by Section

83 to incorporate the material faUs and parti-

culars relating to alleged corrupt practice in the

election petition arc not complied

wi h. The

cinie of Civil Procedure applies to the trial of an

election petition by virtue of section. 87 of the Act.

Since C.P.C. is applicable, the Court trying the

election petition can act in exercise of the powers

of the Code including Order 6 Rule 16 ai d Order

7 Rule 11 (a). Threefore that Section 83 does

not find a place in Section 86 of the Act which

au'horises dismissal of election petitions in cer-

tain Contingencies, docs not rrteiin that pjwers

under the C.P.C. cannot be exercised. An elec-

tion petition can b ; summarily dismissed if it

does not furnish cause of action in exercise of the

powers under the civil P.C. and it is settled law

that the omission of a single material fact would

lead to an incomplete cause of action and that

an election petition withou the material facts relat-

ing to a corrupt p, aeticc is not an election petition

at all."

(emphasis supplied)

BHAGWATI

PRASAD

D1XIT

GHORA-

WALA Vs. RAJIV GANDHI [AIR 1986 SC 1534],

flic Court while reiterating the legal position stated

in the earlier decisions, declared that election, plead-

ings have to bo precise, spceifie ard unambiguous

and if the election petition does not disclose the cau^e

Df action, it should be dismissed in lknine.

The

Court observed thai if the allegations contained in

the Petition do not set out the grounds of challenge

is contemplated under Sec. 100 of the Aet and if the

illegations do not conform to the requirement of

Sections 81 and 83 of the Act, the pleadings ate liable

o be struck off and the election petition liable to be

ejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C.

To the same effect is the decision of the Supreme

Jourt in V NARAYANASWAMY Vs. C. P. THIRU-

•JAVUKKARASU

AIR 2000 SC 694], where the

Sourt distinguished 'material facts' from 'material

arUculnrs' in the following words :

"There is diUcrence between "material factt"

and "material particulars."

While the luilurc

to plead material facts is fatal to the election peti-

tion the absence of material particulars tan be

cured at a latet stage by an appropriate amendment.

"Material facts" mean the entire bundle of iacts,

which would constitute a complete cause of ac-

tion and these must be concisely stated in the

election petition, i e., Cl (a) of sub-section (1) of

S:83. Then under C! (b) of sub-section (1) of

S.83 the election petition must contain lull parti-

culars of any corrupt practice

The particulars

are obviously different from material facts on

which the petition, is found_d."

The decision of the Supreme Court in MA-

HENDRA PAL Vs

RAM DASS MALANGER

AND OTHERS [AIR 2000 SC !6], reiterates the

legal position in simi'ar words.

To sum up ; (I) the provisions of Sec. 83 of tht

Representation of People Act are mandatory. Omis

sion of the petitioner to state material facts are re-

quired by the said provision is fatal

to the main

tainability of the Petition. (2) 'Material Facts¹ ar e

diflernt from

the 'Material

particulars'.

While

the formci constitute the cause of action to maintain

the Petition, the later

can be provided, subject to

the condition that the material facts in regard to the

ground set up in the election petition have been

stated.

(3) The omission to state even a single ma-

terial fact constitutes an incomplete cause of action

justifying dismissal/rejection of the petition

at the

threshold

under

Order

VII

Rule

the

of the C.P.C. (4) If the ground urged in the pe ition

rehtes to improper reception or rejection of votes,

it it not enough to give some figures regarding the

said votes.

Any such figures eatmot be deemed to

be an adequate statement of material facts when the

peiitioner has not disclosed in the petition the basis

on which he had arrived at those figures. (,5) Bald

assertions that the petitioner got the figures from his

counting agents or the agents of other unsuccessful

candidates cannot aflcud a, legal basis.

He must

state as to who are the agents and what were the

serial numbers of the ballot appers on whieh they

had advanced their objection at the time of their

improper reception

or reaction

by the Returning

Officer.

It is time now to leveut back to the facts of the

case ia hand to determine whether the Petition satis-

fies the requirements of See. 83 of the Act and sets

out the material facts in support of the allegations

made and the grounds urged.

In para I of the petition certain general tact

are stated, which arc not indispute.

Para 2 of ilie

pe ition iuter

alia states that the Returning Officer

as rejected more than 30,01)0 votes

CJit m favour

404

THE GAZETTE Of fNDiA : NOVEMBER 17, 2001/KARTIKA 26, 1923

[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]

of the petitioner on the recommendation of the Re-

turning Officers of the Assembly Constituencies,

without assigning proper reasons and without show-

ing the ballot papers to the "Election Agents" of the

petitioner.

In paras 3 and 6 of the petition, the

petitioner has alleged that maximum votes were re-

jected in Kollega!, Chamrajnagar,

Santhemarana-

ha!i and Gundlupet Constituencies, in which large

scale irregularities were committed in the counting

of votes. In para 4 of the petition the petitiner has

given particulars of the Assistant Returning Officers

and alleged that although, some of the "Election

Agents" of the petitioner had raised objections, the

same were not considered

while rejecting the votes.

In para 5 of the petition, the petitioner has alleged

that signature of the Returning Officer are not affixed

on the Ballot Papers as was required under Rule 56

of the Conduct of Election Rules and Section 100(1)

(d) (iii) and (iv) o( R.P. Act. It is also alleged that

the Votes cast in favour of the petitioner were mixed

with the bundle of the votes of the second Respon-

dent.

Para 7 of the petition relates to one ballot

' paper found in the School premises where Polling

Station No. 27, of Heggawadipura in Santhomarana-

halli village,

contituency was established.

Jt is

alleged that a case has beeu registered by the Police

and the matter is under investigation. Para 8, refers

to Representation made by the petitioner to the Re-

turning Officer, pointing-oui irregularities in the

rejection of votes and mixing of votes poflcd in his

favour with those cast in favour of the Respondent

which representation it is alleged was rejected mecha-

nically. Paras 9 to 18 give particulars of the votes

cast in favour of the petitioner and the second Res-

pondent in different grounds of counting. Para 19

alleges mixing of votes cast in favour of the petitioner

with those polled in favour of the second Respondent

and states that in each bundle of 25 ballot papers,

there were at least 4 to 5 votes cast in favour of th

petitioner that were mixed with thoso cast in favour

of the second Respondent- In para 20, the petitioner

has alleged that Counting Agents on Counting Tables

Nos 6, 10 and 14 of Kollegal Constituency, Counting

Table Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of Santhcmaranahalli As-

sembly Constituency and Counting Tables 1, 3 and 5

of Chamrajnagar Constituency had raised objections

regarding improper mixing of vote" and the rejection

of the votes which were noi. considered by the Re-

turning Officer.

In para 21, the petitioner alleges

improper mixing ol' voles in regard to table Nos. 1,

6, 10 and 12 of Chamrajnagar Constituency, Tables

1, 6, 10 and 12 of Kollcgal Constituency, Tables No.

2, 4, 8 and 9 of Santhemaranahalli Assembly Consti-

tuency and tables 4, 6, 7, R and 10 of Gundlupet

Assembly Constituency paras

22 to

25 reiterate

the said allegations. In para 26 the petitioner gives

certain fip.iiTcs which accoi'Oin:; <*-> him represent the

votes actually polled in his favour in I he Assembly

segments

refered

theiein.

Paras

and

28 allege that rejection and mixing of votes was con-

trary to law and had materially affected the result o

the election.

For the sake of clarity, the petitioner's gri-

evance as regards the improper reception

and

rejection of votes as also the irregularities in the

matter of counting of the votes may be summed

up thus

(1) More than 30,000 votes caste in

favour

of the pititioner have been rejected without

assigning proper

reasons

Most of these

votes

were

rejected

Kollegal

Cha-

marajanagar,

Santhemaranahally

and

GundJupct Constituencies.

(2) The rejection was made by the Returning

Officers

the

Assembly

Constituencies

who were not competent to do so.

(3) The rejection

of the

votes was not in

accordance with the procedure prescribed

by the Rules and without showing the

ballot ts to the election

agents

the

petitioner.

(4) The objections raised to the rejection of

votes in regard to Kollegal,

Santemara-

nahalli

Chamarajnagar

and

Gundlupet

Assembly Constituencies were ignored by

the

officials

concerned.

(5) The result of the election

was materially

affected

by reason

a proper

votes

polled in favour

the petitioner

with

those counted in favour

the elected

candidate.

(6) Rejected ballot papers do not have the

signatures of the Returning Officer affixed

to them as required under sec. 56 of the

Conduct of

Election Rules.

(7) The representation made by the pcttioner

seeking a recount was rejected

mechani-

cally.

The question then is whether the allegations

made by the petitioner in regard to the irregu-

larities set out above are supported by the material

facts required to be stated in terms of Sec. 83 of

the Representation of the People Act.

In so far as the petitioner's allegation

that

more than 33,000 votes cas; in his favour wore

rejected without giving any peroper resaons and that

large scale irregularities were committed in the

counting of votes, the petition does not disclose

the basis on which those allegations are made

nor does it provide the material iaots relevant

405

thereto.

The

allegitions

arc general

nature

and

blissfully

vague.

Simply

saying that

out

of the rejected votes more than 30,000 were polled

in favour o( the petitioner is of no consequence

in tile absence of supporting material facts relevant

thereto.

Similarly, the omnibus

allegations

that

tyrge scale irregularities were committed

in the

counting of votes or that the votes polled in

favour of the petitioner's were rejected

without

Assigning proper reasons does not meel the require-

ment ot Section 83 of the Act nor do the said

allegations give rise to a triable issue.

The next allegation is that votes were rejected

the

Returning

Officers

the

Assembly

Constituencies instead of the Returning Officer of

{he Parliamentary Constituency.

The absence of

Signatures of the Returning Officer of the Parlia-

mentary

Constituency, on

the rejected

Ballots

is also urged as a ground to challenge the Election.

The petition does not however make out a case for

interference with the result of the Election even

On the basis of the said allegations.

It is com-

mon ground that Election for the Lok Sabha and

the State Legislative Assembly were held together.

The Returning Officers for the Assembly Cons-

tituencies comprising the Parliamentary

Consti-

tuencies weie appointed as the Assistant Returning

Officers for the Parliamentary Constituencies.

The

power of the Returning Officer

regard

rejection of Votes are exercisable even by the

Assistant

Returning Officers,

appointed

for

the

Constituencies

concerned.

This

is evident

from

$ection 22 oi the R. P. Act, which reads :—

"(1) The

Election

Commission

may

appoint

one or more persons to assist any returning

officer in the performance ot his functions:

Provided that every such person shall

be (an Officer of Government or of a local

authority).

(2) Every

assistant

returning

officer

shall,

subject to the control

of the returning

officer,

be competent to perform all or

any

the functions

the

returning

officer

Provided

that no astistant

returning

Officer shall perform any of the functions

of the returning officer

which relate to

the scrutiny

nominations

unless

the

returning Officer is unavoidably prevented

from performing the said functions ."

The Assistant Returning Officer's were, therefore

entitled to perform

all

the

functions

the

Returning

Officer

except

those

relating

scrutiny of the nomination papers, which function

could be perform by them only, if the Returning

Officer was unavoidably held up. The rejection o^c

the votes by the Returning Officers of the Assem-

bly Constituencies in exercise of their powers as

Assistant Returning

Officers of the Parliamentary

Constituencies, cannot therefore

be found

fault

with.

It follow* 'hat the absence

of the signa-

ture of the Returning Officer

on the rejected

Ballot Papers, would also be wholly immaterial

so long as the Assistant Returning Officers have

in keeping with the procedure prescribed by the

Rules signed by the rejected ballot papers.

That

the Assistant Returning Officers have signed the

rejected ballot papers is not disputed.

The result

is that the rejection of the ballot papers by the

Assistant Returning Officers of the Parliamentary

Constituencies, does

not

afford

tiny cause of

action to sustain the petition.

That brings me to the allegation that the

rejection of the ballot Papers was in violation of

the procedure prescribed by the Rules and without

showing them to the

"Election Agents"

the

petitioner.

It was argued

by Mr.

Shantaraju,

Counsel for

the second

Respondent

tint

the

question of showing the ballot papers to the

"Election Agents" of the petitioner did not arise

having regard to the fact that the petitioner like

all other candidates was entitled to appoint only

one "Election Agent". Section 40 of the R. P. Act,

entitles every candidate to appoint any person

other than himself to be his "Election Agent".

Section 45 provides that an "Election Agent", may

perform such functions as may be prescribed. There

is therefore

no gainsaid that the question of

petitioner appointing more than one person as

"Election Agents" did not arise. The averment that

the Ballot Papers were rejected without showing

the same to

the

"Election

Agent"

the

petitioner is thus clearly mis-placed.

What the

petitioner obviously means to say is that the

votes were rejected without showing them to his

"Counting Agents" appointed under Section 47

of the Act.

Even if we ignore

the confusion

which the

petitioner

appears to be

suffering

from, the question

whether

the

allegation

regarding

rejection

the

Votes contrary to

the

procedure

prescribed

the Rules, and

without showing the Ballots to the "Counting

Agents" can be said to provide a cause of action.

Tn so far as the violation of the procedure pres-

cribed by the Rules is concerned, the

Election

Petition does not give any details whatsoever.

All that is stated is that the rejection w.i^ con-

trary to the procedure prescribed by the Rules,

The petition ought to have set out

h? materi il

facts in regard to the alleged violation wlvch the

petitioner had in mind while making the

said

allegation.

SinJlaily the allegation that the Votes

406

THE GAZETTF. OE INDIA : NOVEMBER IT, 2001/KARTIKA 26, 1923

[PART TI—SEC. 3^iBl

were rejected without showing the same to "Elec-

tion Agents" ("Counting Agents") is also bereft of

any material (acts, The petition does not indicate

the number of votes that were rejected without

showing the same to the "Counting

Agents"

concerned nor does the petition give the names and

Par'iculars o!" 'he "Conn ing Agci's" concerned

or ihc Assembly segmen¹ in rob'ion

o which

such alleged irregularity

was

committed.

The

general allegation that ballots were rejected without

showing the snme to the ''Counting Agents" of

the petitioner,

would

not

therefore

meet

the

requirements of Section 83 especially when the

petitioner does not disclose the basis on which the

said allegation is made.

Coming then to the rejection of Votes polled

Kollegal,

Santhemaranahalli,

Chamrajnagar

and Gundkipet Assembly Constituencies, all that

the petitioner has stated is that the

"Counting

Agents" in respect of some of the counting Tables,

for the said Assembly Constituencies had raised

objections regarding improper rejection of votes,

which

were not

considered

by the

Returning

Officer.

The petition does not however state the

requisite facts in regard to the nature of objections

and the number of votes that were rejected on

each one of the tables referred to by the petitioner.

As observed by the Supreme Court in JITENDRA

BAHADUR SINGH vs. KRISHNA BEHARI &

OTHERS /AIR 1970 SC. 276/ even if. the petition

gives certain figures as to the rejection

the

valid votes and acceptance

of invalid votes, the

same cannot be considered as an adequate statement

of mateijal facts if the petitioner does not dis-

close the basis on which he

anived

at those

figures

A bald assertion that those figures were

obtained from the

"Counting

Agents" of the

unsuccessful candidates cannot declared the Court

afford

the necessary

basis.

In the instant eases the petitioner

has not

even given the figures of

the votes

rejected

improperly and despite objections raised by the

Counting Agents on his behalf. The allegation is

much too vague to give rise to a cause of ae'ion.

As to how many votes were rejected and what

were

the

objections

that

were

raised

against

lejocHon

thereof

has

not

been disclosed.

The

allegation therefore remains unsupported

by the

material lacts requisite for making out a triable

case.

The position is no different in regard to the

allegation of the

petitioner

that

votes

polled

in his favour

were

counted in favour of the

elected candidate.

Even here, the allegation is

totally vague and general in nature.

What the

petitioner states is

thai

with

every

bundle

of 25 baJlot papers 4-5 votes polled in his favour

were mixed with the votes polled in favour of

the second Respondent correspondingly reducing

the number of votes polled in favour

of the

petitioner.

The

allegation

that

objections

regarding the improper mixing of votes in regard

to certain' Counting Tables for Kollegal, Chararaj-

nagar, Santhemaranahalli and Gundlupet Consti-

tuencies

were raised

by the

Counting Agents

but ignored by the Returning Officer.

The peti-

tioner does not however give any details as to

the number of votes that were so mixed on each

one of the tables referred to by

the petitioner

and the basis on which the

allegation regarding

improper mixing has been made.

In the absence

material

facts

supporting

the allegation of

improper mixing it is

difficult to sec

hovv th<

petitioner can claim a cause of action to maintain

this petition.

Last but not the least

the

allegation

regarding mechanical rejection of the Represen-

tation made by the

petitioner

which

the

petitioner claims to have pointed out the irregu-

larities

the

improper

reception

rejection

and mixing up

of votes in course of counting,

A copy of the

Representation

filed by

the

petitioner has been produced as ANNEXURE-D

to the petition.

The English translation of the

Representation

furnished

Mr.

Gangireddy.

Counsel for the petitioner reads as under ;

"From :

S. Siddaraju,

Candidate (Congress)

15 Chamrajanagar Parliamentary Constituency,

No. 2358, 'G' Block,

Adichunchanagiri Road.

Mysore.

To :

The Election Presiding Officer,

15 Chamrajanagar Parliamentary,

Constituency, Chamrajnagar.

Sir,

The counting of votes for the 13th Parlia-

mentary election took place on 6-10-1999, T have

doubt and suspicion in counting votes, because

the votes polled for Assembly constituencies and

Parliamentary constituencies

are not

tailing.

There are variation and differences in polled vote

and while deciding the invalid votes, the votes

polled in favour (Hand symbol) are rejected.

And

while making the bundle of 25 votes counted

votes, the votes polled in my favour were mixed

up in the bundle of other candidates, artd counted

in their favour,

T have a doubt and suspicion

in counting votes. I feel injustice is caused to me

407

for the reasons stated above.

Hence, I request

you to order for recounting of votes of Chamara-

janagar Parliamentary constituencies.

Dated : 7-10-1999.

Yours truly,

Sd/-

Tt is evident from the above that the Representa-

tion did not contain any allegation regarding votes

being rejected by Officers not competent to do so or

regarding votes being- rejected in violation of the

procedure prescribed^ by the Rules and without show-

ing the ballot papers to the Counting Agents con-

cerned or votes being rejected despite objections

raised by the "Counting Agents" in KoUegal, Santhe-

rharanahaHi, Chamarajanagur and Gundlupet Assem-

bly Constituencies or 4 to 5 votes polled in favour

of the petitioner being mixed'with the bundle o\' i ^tes

polled in favour of the successful candidates.

The

Representation is, based on doubts which the petitio-

ner entertained regarding the counting of Votes and

rejection of those that were polled in his favour.

the absence of any specific allegation suggesting any

irregularity in the counting process, the Returning

Officer was justified in rejecting the request for a re-

count.

Inasmuch as the Re-count applied for by the

petitioner was declined the Returning Officer did not

in my opinion commit any illegality or impropriety

to affect the validity of the result declared by him.

As a matter of fact, the absence of any one of the

allegations now made in the Election Petition chal-

lenging, the validity of the-counting and the result,

clearly shows that the petitioner did not on the date

of the counting have any reasonable ground to ques-

tion the result of the counting process as such. Even

if the allegations now made in the petition arc taken

on their face value, the same fall short of the require-

ments of Section 83 of the R. P. Act, and therefore

do not provide a cause of action to the petitioner to

maintain the present petition.

Mr. Gangi Reddy, however, argued that the

deficiencies in ihe petition could be removed by

permitting the petitioner to amend the same. He

submitted that the application made by the petitioner

for amendment could be allowed and the particulars

set out therein allowed¹ to be incorporated; which

would provide a cause of aotion to the petitioner.

There is in my opinion, no merit in that contention

either. The legal position as settled by the decisions

of the Supreme Court referred to earlier makes a

distinction between material facts the absence whereof

would result indismissal of the petition for want of

cause of action and material particulars that could

be provided if not originally set out in the petition.

As stated by their Lordships in V. NARAYANA

SWAMY's case/AIR' 2000-SC. 694/. while failure to

plead • material facts is fatal to ihc Election Petition,

the absence of maierial.partic-ulars can be cured at a

later stage by an appropriate amendment,

Since

3440 GI/2001—2

the petition as drawn up by the petitioner has been

found to be lacking in material facts, there is no

question of the petitioner infusing life into the same

by way of an amendment.

Even Mr. Gangiroddy,

was fair enough to concede that material facts could

not be introduced by way of an amendment while

material

particulars

could

provided.

therefore described the Amendment Application as

an attempt to provide material particulars and not

material facts which according to him were already

set out in the petition.

Since that submission has

not been found to be correct, there is no room for

granting the application for amendment to bring in

material particulars.

Issues No. 2 and 3 are accordingly decided against

the petitioner.

Issues No. 4 and 5 :

Keeping in view my findings on Tssues 2 and 3,

above, 1 consider it unnecessary and academic to

deal with Issues No. 4 and 5.

In the result, this petition is liable t

be rejected

in terms of Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. read with

Section 83-of the R. P. Act. The same is accordingly

rejected with costs assessed at Rs. 1,000 to be paid

out of the security deposit made by the petitioner.

The balance shall be refunded to the petitioner.

The Registry shall take steps for communication

of this Order to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and

Election Commission, m terms of Section 103 of the

Representation of the People Act.

Sd/-

Judge

TN THE HTGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT

BANGALORE

ELECTION PETITION NO. 21/1999

BETWEEN :

A. Siddaraju, Major

R/o. No. 2358; T Block,

Adich LiTtchanagiri > Road ;

Kuvempunagar, Mysore,

Petitioner

(By Sri G. Gangi Reddy, Adv.)

Vs.

\. Returning Officer No. 15,

Chamarajanagar.

Lok Sabha Parliamentary Constituency,

Chamarajanagar, and

The Deputy Commissioner,

Chamarajanagar Distt,

108

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 17 2001/KART1KA 26, 1923

[PAUT II— 5i:c. 3(iii)]

2. V. Srinivasa Prasad,

S/o. Venkataiah, M.P.,

Major, R/o. No. 91, Bheeniasandn,

7th Main, Jayal.ikshmipuiam,

Mysore-12.

3. H. Govindaiah.

Deputy Registrar of Evaluation.

Karnataka Open University,

Manasaganjrotri.

4. M. K. Kcmpe Sidduiah, Major,

No. 412, 4th 'A' Main Road,

3rd Stage, Basuvc-waranaear.

Bmg:.ilore-79.

5. Vitharavadi Mantalingaiah,

President, A.J.M.S.,

(iandhinagar, My .ore.

Respondents

The Go\r. Adv. IVr R- I,

G. V. Shantluiniju Tor R-j,

Respondents 3 to .1 are placed evparle v/o.

' tit, 24-6-2000,

DECREE IN liLECTIOM PETITION

This Election Petition filed n/s. SI of the Repre-

sentation

' the People Act, i9.S!, by the Petitioner-

candidate at 1999 General Election to the Lok Sabha

from No. 15, Chamarajaiiagtir P.nliamcntary Consti-

tuency held on 11-9-ISW⁰ praying that this Hon'ble

Coi'rt be please.I to ;

Call for the concerned records, order for

production of the Ballot Papers including the

rejected votes and puss for orders, for recount

as deemed fit, in the interest of Just'ce.

Declare the election of 2nd Respondent as

void and thereafter declare the Petitioner is

elected as M.P. for the Parliamentary Section

15 of Chamarajanagar in Karnataka State,

in the interest of Justice and equity.

This Election Petition coming up for orders, on

l.As. I to V regarding [.As. I and III for deletion

of Respondent No. 1 from the Election Petition,

l.A. 11 for striking out the Paragraphs 2 to 22 in the

Election Petition and for dismissing the Election

Petition, T.A. IV and l.A, V for amendment of the

Election Petition, between 9-6-2000 to 30-3-2001 and

for Pronouncement of orders on 20-4-2001 in the

presence of Sri G. Gimizi Reddy, Advocate for Peti-

tioner and the Go\ jnii.iL,.t Advoeiue for Ites'pjoJjnt

No, 1 and Sri G. V, Shantharajn, Advocate for

Respondent No. 2 and Respondents 3 to 5 having

been placed ev-parte v/o duted 24-6-2000 and for

the reasons stated in the order, it is ordered and

decreed that the Election Petition be and the same

is hereby dismissed.

And it is further ordered and decreed that the

C'osU assessed at Rs. 1,000 to be paid out of the

Security Deposit made by the Petitioner to the 2nd

Respondent. The balance amount shall be refunded

to the Petitioner.

Sd/-

Ree.istrar (Judicial)

[No- K2/KT-HP/21/99/2O01]

By Order,

BABU RAM, Secy.

410

THE GAZETTE OF IN1>J A : NOVF.MBKR 17, 2001/KARTtKA 26, 1923

[PART IT—SEC. 3(iii)]

ORDER

New Delhi, the 7th Novetnbcr, 20)1

O. N. 147.—Whereas, the Election Commission is satisfied thai ||cach

the

contesting

candidates

specified in column (3) of the Table below at the General Election to the .Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly

2001, held from I he Constituency specified in the column (2) against his/her

name has failed to lodge

an account of his/her election expenses as mentioned in column (4) of the said Table, as

required by the

Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Rules made thereunder;

And, whereas the said candidates have either not furnished aay reason or explanation

for the said

failures even aficr due notice to each of them and the Election- Cofamission is satisfied that

they have no

good reason or justification

for the said failure;

Mow, therefore, in pursuance of Section 10A of the said Act, the Election

Commission hereby

dtcli j< f-

the persons specified in column (3) ofihe Table below to b2 (disqualified for being chosen as and for beinjj,

a member of either House of the Parliament or Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State for

a period of 3 years from the date of this Order.

TABLE

SI.

No.

No. & Name of Assembly

Constituency

15-Gummidipoondi

16-Ponneri (SC)

18-Villivakkam

Name & Address of the

contesting candidate

Nedunchanzhian, E,

Vadamadurai,

Village Uthukottai

Taluk,

Tamil Nadu.

Rathinam, A.D.,

4, Valluvar St.,

Arani, Ponneri Taluk,

Tamil Nadu.

Abubakkar M.,

35/39, Angamuthu Nagar,

1st St., Piidj,

Chennai-50

Tamil Nadu.

Reason

for

disqualification

Accounts not lodged at alli

-do-

411

6 .

28-Poonaimallee

30-Tiruttani

3i*Pallipattu

Gouthaman, C. N. A.,

Old No. 12 B,

(New No. 27 B),

4th West, Cross Street,

Sheuoy Nagar,

Chen.nai-30

Til mil Nadu.

1. Chandrababu, P. S.,

S/o Subramanian,

Kodivalli Village,

[llupur Post,

631-204 Via,

Kanakammachatram,

Tirultani Taluk. ,

Tamil Nadu.

2. Thiyagarajan, T. M.,

S/o Munlrathmam,

2/32, B. Saraiathi St.,

ThimvaUmgadu-631210,

Timttani Taluk,

Tamil Nadu.

3. Jayaraman, A.,

S/o M. Arumugam,

72A, Thattankulum Pudur,

Tiruttani Town,

Timttani Taluk-631209

Tamil Nadu.

I. Sankaran, G.(

Nodiyaiii Village & Post,

Paltipattu Taluk,

Tiruvallur District,

Tamil Nadu.

2. Thiruvengadam, A. K.,

4/401, Dr. Ambedkar StretJ,

Vanganoor,

Village &Post,

Pallipattu Ttiluk,

Tiruvallur District,

Tamil Nadu.

3. Panchatcharam, D.,

Somasamudram Colony,

Sholinghur Post,

Walaja Taluk,

Velio re District,

Tamil Nadu.

4. Vinayagam, P. A.,

Mettu Street,

Buchircddy Palli,

Village & Post,

Tiruttani Taluk ,

Tiruvallur District,

Tamil Nadu,

Accounts not lodged at all.

-dc-

-do-

-do-

-do-

413

ORDER

New Delhi, the 7th November, !00l

O.N, 148-—Whereas, the Election Commission is satisfied that each of the contesting cnudjdatis specifxd

in column (3) of the Table below at the General Election to the Kerala Legislative Assembly, T01, held frrm the

Constituency specified in the.column (z) against his/her name has failed to ledge an account of his/her election

expenses as mentioned in celumn (4) of the said Table, as required by the Representation of the People Act, 1951

and the Rules made thereunder;

And, whereas the said candidates have cither not furnished any reason or explanation for the said fnilures

even after due notice to each of them and the Election Commission is satisfied that they have no gcod reas( n o-r

justification for the said failure;

Now, therefore, in pursuance of Section 10A of the said Act, the Election Commission hereby declares the

persons specified in column (3) of the Table below to be disqalified for being chosen as and for being, a member of

either House of the Parliament or Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State for a pcried of 3 years from

the date of this Order.

TABLE

SI.

No. and Name of Assembly

Constituency

16-North Wayanad(ST)

29-Kalpetta

Name and Address of the contesting

candidate

Paleri Raman,

PaJeri (H),

Makkiyadu Post.

Vellamunda (via)

Kerala

1. Bijii,

Kottayadokolly (H),

Check kallor,

Kaniyambetta, P.O.

Kerala

2, Ramchandran,

Kannankott,

Ruttakkolli,

Kalpetta,

Kerala.

3. Hamza,

Korankunnan (H),

Kambalakkad Post,

Wayanad,

Kerala,

Reason for disqualification

Accounts not V dged at all

-do-

416

THE GAZETTE OF fNDTA : NOVEMBER"17, 2001/KARTIKA 26, 1923

[PART I[i-Sbc. 3(fii)]

ORDER

New Delhi, the 7th November, 2001 •

O. N. 149. -Whereas, the Election Commission is satisfied that each of the contesting candidate specified

in column (3) of the Table below at the General Election to the West Bengal Legislative Assembly, 2001 held from

the Constituency specified in column (2) against his name has failed tolodge anyi account of his election expenses or

has failed to lodge his account of election expenses in the manner required, bylaw as shown in column (4) of the said

Table as required by the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Rules made thereunder; and

Whereas, the said candidates have either not furnished any reason or explanation for the said failure even

after due notice or the Election Commission after considering the representation made by them, if any, is satisfied

that they have no good reason or justification for the said failure;

Now, therefore, in pursuance of section 10A o(~ the said Act, the Election Commission hereby declares

the pesons specified in column (3) ofthe Table below to be disqualified for being chosen as and for being;a member

of either House ofthe Parliament or the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a Staie/Union Territory lor

a period of three years from the date of this Order

TABLE

No.

Number and Neme of

Assembly Constituency

4—Cooch Behar North

26—Phansidewa (ST)

79—Hahskhali (SO

81—Rannghat West

81—Ranaghat West

83—Haringhata

Names of contesting candidaies

Sh. Prakash Roy

Magazine Road,

P.O. -t District: Cooch Behar,

West Bengal.

Sh. Cornelius Tigga

Churnidangi, Chathat bansgaon,.

P.O. & P.S. Phansidewa,

Distt. Darjeeling.

West Bengal.

Ms. Amrita Sarkar

Vill : Hemayctpur,

(Mathnarayarpur),

P.O. Shibnarayanpur,

P.S. Dhantals,

District Nadia,

West Bengal.

Sri Dipankar Biswas

Cospers Notified Area,

D Block Ward No, 3,

Distriet Nadia,

West Bengal.

Sri Swapan Dutta

Vill. + P.O. Panpara,

District Nadia,

West Bengal.

Sh. Paresh Mondal

Vill. + P.O. Chanduria,

District Nadia,

West Bengal.

Reason for disqualification

Account not lodged at all

• 417

10.

11.

12.

83—Haringhata

130—Bhatpara

293—Nalhati

Ms. Shefali

Haider

V ill. + P.O. Chanduria

District Nadia

West Bengal.

Sri Narendra Pratap Mishra

2B, Prince Rahimuddin Lane,

Kolkata-700033.

Sri Ajay Biswas

29/4/1 Kabin Rd.,

P'.O. Jagatdal 24 Pgs (N)

Kolkata-743125.

Sri Ramesh Shaw

55/1, Atchala Bagan Road,

Jagatdal, 24 Pgs (N),

743125.

Dr. Jayprakash Chakrabarti

Nalhati Medical Centre,

•ftO. Nalhati (T.S.)

District Birbhum.

West Bengal.

Sri Bhanjan LcL

Vill.JBanti,

1 P!O. Bautia,

District Birbhuin.

West Bengal.

Account not lodged at all

Account not lodged al all

vAccounl not lodged al all

'•Account not lodged at all

[No. ;76/WB-LA/2001

By •Order,

' GHANSHYAM KUOHAR, Secy.

419

ORDER

New Delhi, the 7th November, 2001

ON, 150,—Whereas, the Election Commission is satisfied that each of the contesting candidate specified

In column (3) of the Table below at the General Election to the Orissa Legislative Assembly, 2000 held from the

Constituency specified in column (2) against his name has failed to lodge any account of his election expenses or

has failed to lodge his account of election expenses in the manner required by Jaw as shown in column (4) of the

said Table as required by the Representation o( the People Act, 1951 and the Rules made thereunder; and

Whereas, the said candidates have either not furnished any reason or explanation for the said failure even

after due notice or the Election Commission after considering the representation made by them, if

any, is

satisfied that they have no good reason or justification (or the said failure;

Now, therefore, in pursuance of Section 10A of the paid Actt the Election Commission hereby o'ocJarc?

the persons specified in column (3) of the Table below to be disqualified for being chosen as and for being a member

of either House of the Parliament or the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Counci] of a State/Union Terrilcry

for a period of three years from the date of this Order.

TABLE

No.

Number and name of

Assombly Constituency

94—Nawapara

Names of contesting candidates

Sh. Giinanath Joshi,

AT/P.O. : Nuapada,

P.S_ : Nuapada,

District : Nuapada,

Orissa.

SL Jeerakhan Majhi,

AT : Chalmunda,

RO, : Khariar Road,

P S. ; Jonk,

Distt : Noapada,

Orissa.

Reason for disqualification

Account not lodged at all.

Account not lodged at all

4!J

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 17, 2001/KARtIKA 26, 1923

[PART T I ^ S E C . 3(iifj]

10.

11.

12.

111—Balarjgir

138—Biramitrapur (ST)

139—Rourkela

139->Rourk«!a

139—Rourkcla

140^-Raghunalhpali

140—Ragbunathpali

140— Raghunathpali

140—Raghunathpali

Sh. Bcnimadhab Hota,

AT/P.O : Loogaon,

P.S : Tusra,

District: BaJangJr,

Orissa.

Sh. Sukdcv Pradhan,

AT : Madhupurt

P.O. : Limda,

P.S. : Bisie,

District : Sundaigai-h,

Orissa.

Sh. Danie! Lugun,

Qr No. B/220,

Sector J4,

Rourke]a-9,

District : Sundargarh,

Orissa.

Sh. Pravat NaJini Mohanty,

Qr. No. B/116,

Sector-20,

RourkcJa,

Orissa.

Sh. Subash Dwivedi,

•Qr. No. C/J15,

Sector-2,

Rourkela,

Orissa_

Sh, Devika Mahato,

B/386, Koelnagar,

Rourkcla-J4,

' 'Oriss;'.

Sh. Johnson Anil Bhengra,

Fcrtjjizer Town,

Qr. No. C/23I>

Rourkela

769007,

Orissa.

Sli. Ignace Tirkey>

AT/P.O. : Jhirpani,

Rourkela,

Distiicl : Sundargarh,

Orissa.

Sh. Kishore Chandra Naik,

Vi!!. : Gopapali,

P O. : Vedvyas,

District : Sundargarh,

Orissa.

Sh. Sura Oram,

Vil!./P.O. : Jhirpani,

District : Sundargarh,

Orissa

Account not lodged at a¹!

Account not lodged at aJL

Account not lodged at all.

Account not lodged at aJl.

Account not lodged at a!J

Account not lodged at all

Accountnot Ibdged at all.

Account not lodged at all.