रजिस्ट्री सं० डी० एल० ( एन ) 04/0007/2003-05
REGD. NO . D. L. (N) 04/0007 /2003-05
सत्यमेव जयते भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India
प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप्ताहिक
WEEKLY
सं० 21]
No. 21]
नई दिल्ली, जुलाई 23-जुलाई 29 , 2006 , शनिवार/श्रावण 1- श्रावण 7 , 1928 NEW DELHI, JULY 23- JULY 29 , 2006, SATURDAY/SRAVANA 1- SRAVANA 7, 1928 इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II-खण्ड 3-उप-खण्ड ( iii) PART II Section 3-Sub- section (iii)
केन्द्रीय अधिकारियों ( संघ राज्य क्षेत्र प्रशासनों कोछोड़कर ) द्वारा जारी किये आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं Orders and Notifications issued by Central Authorities (other than the Administrations of Union Territories)
भारत निर्वाचन आयोग
आदेश
नई दिल्ली, 7 जुलाई , 2006
आ. अ. 69.-यतः निर्वाचन आयोग का समाधान हो गया है कि नीचे की सारणी के स्तंभ ( 2 ) में यथा विनिर्दिष्ट बिहार राज्य से विधान सभा के साधारण निर्वाचन , 2005 के लिए जो स्तंभ ( 3 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट निर्वाचन क्षेत्र से हुआ है स्तंभ (4 ) में उसके सामने विनिर्दिष्ट निर्वाचन लड़ने वाला प्रत्येक अभ्यर्थी , लोक प्रतिनिधित्व अधिनियम , 1951 तथा तद्दीन बनाए गए नियमों द्वारा अपेक्षित उक्त सारणी के स्तंभ ( 5 ) में यथादर्शित अपने निर्वाचन व्ययों का कोई भी लेखा दाखिल करने अथवा रीति के अनुसार लेखा दाखिल करने में असफल रहा है;
और, यतः उक्त अभ्यर्थियों ने सम्यक् सूचना दिए जाने पर भी उक्त असफलता के लिए कोई कारण अथवा स्पष्टीकरण नहीं दिया है या उनके द्वारा दिए गए अभ्यावेदनों पर, यदि कोई हो , विचार करने के पश्चात् निर्वाचन आयोग का यह समाधान हो गया है कि उनके पास उक्त असफलता के लिए कोई पर्याप्त कारण या न्यायौचित्य नहीं है ;
अतः , अब, निर्वाचन आयोग उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10- क के अनुसरण में नीचे की सारणी के स्तंभ ( 4 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट व्यक्तियों को संसद के किसी भी सदन के या किसी राज्य संघ राज्य की विधान सभा अथवा विधान परिषद् के सदस्य चुने जाने और सदस्य होने के लिए इस आदेश की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की कालावधि के लिए निरर्हित घोषित करता है :-
2170 GI/2006
(187) 188
PART II-SRC. 3 (iii) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 29, 2006/SRAVANA 7 , 1928
सारणी
निर्वाचन का
निर्वाचन लड़ने वाले
निरर्हता का कारण क्र. सं
विवरण
विधान सभा निर्वाचन क्षेत्र की सं. व नाम
अभ्यर्थी का नाम व पता
5
3
4
1
2
1.
बिहार राज्य से विधान 36-बनियापुर
सभा का साधारण
श्री रामजी राय , ग्राम- धुंधरी, पो.-परसागढ़, भाया-एकमा,
निर्वाचन व्ययों काकोई भी लेखा दाखिलकरने में
जिला-सारण, बिहार
निर्वाचन , 2005
असफल रहे हैं ।
निर्वाचन व्ययों का
श्री असेश्वर पाण्डेय
2
-वही-
37- मशरख
पिता-स्व. झमीन्द्र पाण्डेय
ग्राम- वसन्तपुर पो.- सतजोरा
लेखा विधि द्वारा अपेक्षित रीति से दाखिल करने में असफल रहे हैं।
थाना-पानापुर जिला-सारण , बिहार
-वही-
-वही-
श्री चंद्रमा सिंह
-वही-
3.
पिता- दुधनाथ सिंह
ग्राम-बेरुई
पो.-बेरुई
थाना-बनियारपुर , जिला-सारण , बिहार
-वही- 4.
श्रीयोगेन्द्र मिश्र
-वही-
-वही-
पिता स्व. लक्ष्मण मिश्र ग्राम-लूल्हा धनाव , पो.- बनाय
थाना-बनियापुर जिला-सारण , बिहार
-वही-
श्री रामनारायण प्रसाद
-वही-
यादव
पिता- मुसाफिर राय
ग्राम-सलेमपुर, पो. वृत भगवानपुर थाना-पानापुर जिला-छपरा , सारण, बिहार
-वही-
5.
निर्वाचन
श्री सुभाष कुमार, ना-मुसाफिर राय ,
नेमपुर
व्त्रानपुर
व्ययों काकोई भी लेखा विधिद्वारा अपेक्षित रीति से दाखिल करने में असफल रहे हैं। -वही-
ग्राम-स
-वही-
-वही- 6.
पो. वृत्त भग
थाना-पानापुर
जिला-छपरा , सारण ,
बिहार
श्री हरेन्द्रसिंह
-वही-
पिता-रामनिगाह सिंह ग्राम-धेनुकी,
-वही-
7.
पो.-धेनुकी
थाना-पानापुर जिला-सारण, बिहार [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( iii) ]
1
2
3 8.
37-मशरख
189
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 29 , 2006/ श्रावण 7 , 1928
4
5
श्री गुदरी मांझी
पिता-बोरछन मांझी
बिहार राज्य से विधान सभा का साधारण निर्वाचन , 2005
ग्राम-बेरूई
निर्वाचन व्ययों का कोई भी लेखा दाखिलकरने में असफल रहे हैं । पो.-बेरूई
थाना-बनियापुर
जिला-छपरा ( सारण ) ,
बिहार
9.
-वही-
-वही-
38-तरैया -वही-
10.
-वही-
श्री रामाज्ञा सिंह पिता- शिवजी सिंह ग्राम- व पो. बेरूई, थाना-बनियापुर, जिला-छपरा , सारण , बिहार
-वही-
श्री इन्दुभूषण सिंह
पिता- केदार प्रसाद सिंह
ग्राम-चांदपुरा ,
पो.- उसुरी चांदपुरा ,
थाना-तरैया,
जिला-सारण , बिहार
निर्वाचन व्ययों का श्री श्रद्धा राय
-वही- 11.
-वही-
पिता- नथुनी राय
ग्राम-डोइला, पो.- मशरक,
थाना-इसुआपुर
लेखा विधि द्वारा अपेक्षित रीति से दाखिल करने में असफल रहे हैं । जिला-सारण , बिहार
12.
-वही-
40-जलालपुर.:
निर्वाचन व्ययों श्रीगौतम सिंह ग्राम+पो.-काहीं
वही- 13.
-वही-
का कोई भी लेखा दाखिल करने में असफल रहे हैं। भाया-जलालपुर बाजार , जिला-सारण , बिहार .
-वही-
सुश्रीअंजु देवी,
ग्राम+पो.-कुमना,
थाना-कोपा,
जिला-सारण, बिहार
-वही- 14.
-वही-
-वही-
श्री मनोज कुमार तिवारी
ग्राम+पो.-कुमना, थाना-कोपा,
जिला-सारण, बिहार
-वही-
श्री महेश मांझी
-वही- 15.
-वही-
ग्राम+पो.- इनई, थाना- रिविलगंज,
जिला-सारण, बिहार
41-छपरा 16.
-वही-
निर्वाचन व्ययों का
लेखा विधिद्वारा अपेक्षित रीति से दाखिल करने में असफल रहे है । श्री अरुण कुमार सिंह ग्राम-नेवाजी टोला, पत्रालय-छपरा थाना-रिविलगंज , जिला-सारण , बिहार 190
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29 , 2006/SRAVANA 7 , 1928
2
3 1
17.
41-छपरा बिहार राज्य से विधान सभा का साधारण निर्वाचन , 2005
18.
-वही- -वही-
19
-वही-
-वही-
-वही- 20.
-वही-
21.
-वही-
44-सोनपुर 22.
-वही-
45-हाजीपुर
52-वैशाली 23.
-वही-
159-चकाई 24.
-वही-
-वही-
25.
160-झाझा
183-मोकामा 26.
-वही-
[PART II SEC . 3 (iii) ]
5 4
श्री नन्द किशोर कुमार रूपगंज, पो.-छपरा, जिला-सॉरण , बिहार
निर्वाचन व्ययों का कोई भी लेखा दाखिल करने में असफल रहे है। सुश्री नूतन देवी
निर्वाचन व्ययों का लेखा विधिद्वारा अपेक्षित रीति से दाखिल करने में असफल रहे हैं। गुदरी राय के चौक पो.-छपरा , थाना- भगवान बाजार जिला-सारण, बिहार
-वही-
श्री रवीश चन्द्र गुप्ता मो.-मौना हुस्से, छपरा, सारण , बिहार
निर्वाचन व्ययों काकोई भी लेखा दाखिल करने में असफल रहे हैं। श्री संजय राय मु. मुबारक लेन , दहियावाँ पो.-छपरा , थाना छपरा नगर, जिला सारण , बिहार
-वही-
श्री राम कुमार दास ग्राम- चतुरपूर , पो.-गोपालपुर, थाना नयागांव (सारण ) , बिहार
-वही-
श्री सुरेन्द्र राय ग्राम- लिटियाही उर्फ असमतपुर सिंधिया, पो.- रतनपुरा, थाना-गंगाब्रीज, जिला-वैशाली , बिहार
-वही-
श्री प्रमोद कुमार राय ग्राम-केशोपुर पो.-बालुकाराम जिला-वैशाली
-वही-
श्री ब्रहमदेव मंडल ग्राम-केशोफरका, सोनो , जमूई, बिहार
-वही-
श्री अशोक कुमार टेलवा बजार, झाझा, जमुई, बिहार
-वही- श्रीबिहारी महतो पिता-कैलाश महतो, ग्राम-मालपुर पो.-प्रहलादपुर, थाना-घोसवरी , जिला-पटना, बिहार [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (iii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 29, 2006/ अण 7 , 1928
27.
188- पटना पश्चिम बिहार राज्य से विधान सभा का साधारण निर्वाचन , 2005
श्री चन्दा परवीन आर. ब्लौक रोड नं. 8 जी.पी.ओ. , पटना थाना-सचिवालय जिला-पटना , बिहार
-वही-
28.
-वही-
श्री मुकेश कुमार ग्राम-कुर्जी बालूपर भानामल के पीछे थाना-दीघा जिला, पटना बिहार 29.
-वही-
-वही-
श्री राम कुमार मिश्र रेलवे कालौनी अवधपुरी , पो+थाना-दीघा, पटना बिहार 30.
-वही- -वही-
श्री सुनील कुमार पूर्वी पटेल गगर, रोड नं. -5 मकान संख्या-19 शास्त्री नगर , पटना, बिहार
189-पटनाकेन्द्रीय -वही-
31.
सुश्रीऊषा देवी 45, चाँदमारी रोड , कंकड़बाग , पटना-20 , बिहार 32.
-वहां- -वहा-
सुश्री सरस्वती शर्मा शिवपुरी, पो. अनिशावाद, थाना-गर्दनीबाग , जिला- पटना , बिहार
-वही- 33.
-वही-
:
श्री अंजनी कुमार लोहिया नगर , कंकड़बाग , पटना-20 , बिहार
-वही- -वही-
34.
श्री मनोज कुमार भूषण लेन, पूर्वीलोहानीपुर, कदमकुआं पटना, बिहार
-वही- -वही-
35.
191 निर्वाचन व्ययों का कोई भी लेखा दाखिल करने में असफल रहे हैं ।
-वही-
-वही-
-वही-
-वही-
निर्वाचन व्ययों का लेखा विधि द्वारा अपेक्षित रीति से दाखिल करने में असफल रहे हैं ।
निर्वाचन व्ययों का कोई भी लेखा दाखिल करने में असफल रहे है।
-वही-
-वही-
श्रीविजय कुमार
गुलाबीघाट,
महेन्दू, पटना-6 , बिहार
36.
-वही-
191-दानापुर
श्रीमनोज कुमार 49, ग्रैण्डस्क्वायर, दानापुर कैन्ट, पो.-दानापुर कैन्ट, थाना-दानापुर जिला-पटना, बिहार
2170 68/06-2
-वही- 192
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2006/ SRAVANA 7 , 1928
2
1
3
37.
192-मनेर
[PART II--SEC. 3 (iii) ] 4
5
श्री कमल कान्त
बिहार राज्य से विधान सभा का साधारण निर्वाचन,
2005
38.
निर्वाचन व्ययों का
कोई भी लेखा ग्राम- रामपुर इस्माइल,
दाखिलकरने में पो.- बहपुरा , थाना-बिहटा ,
असफल रहे हैं । जिला-पटना , बिहार
श्री शर्मा राम
-वही-
-वही-
-वही-
ग्राम-कटहरा
39.
-वही-
194-विक्रम पो. -मनेर,
थाना-मनेर,
जिला- पटना, बिहार
-वही-
सुश्री कुसुम देवी
ग्रा. पो. अराप,
थाना-बिकम
40.
-वही-
-वही-
जिला- पटना, बिहार
-वही-
श्री विजय कुमार
ग्राम-उदयपुरा पो.- धोबिया कालापुर
थाना-नौबतपुर,
जिला-पटना, बिहार
-वही-
41.
-वही-
श्री बैज नाथ शर्मा
-वही-
ग्राम-गोविन्दपुर पो - दतियाना थाना-बिक्रम
जिला-पटना , बिहार
42.
-वही-
-वही-
-वही-
श्री रमेश कुमार
ग्राम-पो-अजवॉ
थाना-नौबतपुर
जिला- पटना, बिहार
43.
-वही-
-वही-
-वही-
श्री राम सुजान चौधरी ग्राम+पो. -कुंजवॉ थाना-बिहटा,
जिला-पटना, बिहार
-वही-
44.
195-पालीगंज
-वही-
श्रीपिन्टूशर्मा
45.
-वही-
-वही-
46.
-वही-
230-कोंच ग्राम+पो.-अंकुरी , थाना-पालीगंज ( पटना ) , बिहार
-वही-
श्री उमेश शर्मा ग्राम+पो.-किदवईपुरी , थाना- बुद्धा कलौनी ( पटना ) ,
बिहार
मो. नौसाद आलम
-वही-
47.
235-बोधगया ( अ.जा. )
-वही-
ग्राम-जहाना , पो.-डौरमा ,
थाना-आंती, जिला- गया , पटना , बिहार
श्री किशोर पासवान
-वही-
ग्रा.-छोटकी , बभनी , मोचारिम , थाना-बोधगया , जिला- गया , बिहार [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (iii) ]
193 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 29 , 2006/ 7 , 1928
1
2
3
4
5
48.
बिहार राज्य से विधान
श्रीकाली प्रसाद
235- बोधगया( अ.जा. )
निर्वाचन व्ययों का
ग्रा.- मियांबिगहा , बोधगया , जिला- गया, बिहार
विधान सभा का साधारण निर्वाचन, 2005
कोई भी लेखा दाखिल करने में असफल रहे हैं ।
49.
-वही-
-वही-
-वही-
श्री राजकुमार पासवान शेखपुरा खुर्द-सालेपुर, फतेहपुर बेलागंज, जिला-गया, बिहार
50.
-वही-
-वही-
237-फतेहपुर ( अ.जा. ) श्री चन्द्रमांझी , ग्राम- हेमजा , पो. भगौसा, थाना- वजीरगंज , जिला- गया, बिहार
[सं. 76/बिहार- वि.स. /2006 ]
आदेश से ,
आर. के. श्रीवास्तव , सचिव ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
ORDER
New Delhi , the 7th July, 2006
O. N. 69. Whereas , the Election Commission is satisfied that each of the contesting candidates specified in column (4) ofthe Table below at the General Election to the Legislative Assembly, 2005 from the State ofBihar as specified in column (2) held from the constituency specified in column (3 ) against his/her name has failed to lodge any account ofhis/ her election expenses at all or in the manner as required by the Representation of the People Act, 1951 , and the rules made thereunder as shown in column (5) of the said Table,
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 of the said Act , the Election Commission hereby declares the persons specified in column (4) of the Table below to be disqualified for being chosen as , and for being a member of either House of the Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State/Union Territory for a period of three years from the date of this order :--
TABLE
Name & Address of the
Candidate
SL No.
Particulars of election
Reason of disqualification
Number& Name ofthe Constituency
3
4
5
1
2
1.
Sh.Ramji Rai ,
Failure to lodge
36-Baniayapur
any account of electionexpenses .
General Election to the Legislative Assembly, 2005 from the State ofBihar
Vill-Mundhari ,
PO. -Parsagarh
Via-Ekama,
Dis-Saran,Bihar
2 -do-
37-Masarakh
Sh. Ashesaur Panday, S/o Late Jhamindra
Failureto lodge any account of election expenses inthe manner requiredby law
Panday Vill-Vasantpur, P.O. -Satjora,
P.S. -Panapur
Dist.-Saran, Bihar
194
[PART II SEC. 3 (iii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2006/ SRAVANA 7 , 1928
5
4
1
2
3
3.
37-Masarakh
General Electtion tothe Legislative Assembly, 2005 from the State of Bihar
Failureto lodge any account of election expenses in the manner required bylaw
S. Chandrama Singh, S/o Dudhnath Singh , Vill-Berui, P.O. -Berui, P.S. -Baniapur, Dist. -Saran, Chapra, Bihar
-do-
-do-
4. -do-
Sh . Yogendra Mishra, S/o Late LaxmanMishra, Vill-LulhaDhanaw, P.O. -Dhanaw, P.S. -Baniapur, Distt. Saran, Bihar
5. -do-
-do-
-do-
S.Ramnarain Prasad Yadav, S/o Musafir Rai , Vill-Salempur, P.O. -Vrit Bhagwanpur, P.S. -Panpur, Distt. -Chapra, Saran, Bihar
6. -do-
-do-
-do-
Sh. Subhash Kumar, S/o Musafir Rai , Vill.-Salempur, PO. Vit Phagwaψω, P.S. -Panapur, Distt. -Chapra, Saran, Bihar
-do-
-do-
7.
-do-
Sh.Harendra Singh, S/o Ram Nigah Singh, Vill. -Dhenuki, P.O. -Dhenuki , P.S. -Panapur, Distt.- Saran, Bihar
8. -do-
-do-
Failure to lodge any account of election expenses .
Sh .GudriMajhi , S/ o Borchhan Manjhi Vill. -Berui, P.O. -Baniapur, Dist-Chapra(Saran), Bihar
9. -do-
-do-
-do-
Sh . Ramagya Singh, S/o Shivjee Singh, Vill-Berui, P.O. -Berui, P.S. -Baniapur, Distt-Chapra-Saran Bihar [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( iii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 1
3
2
10.
38-Taraiya
General Election to the Legislative Assembly, 2005 from the State of Bihar
11.
-do-
-do-
12. -do-
40-Jalalpur
2006/ , 1928
195 4
5
Failureto lodge any account of election expenses
Sh. Indu Bhushan Singh S/o Kedar Prasad Singh Vill-Chandpura, P.O. -Usuri Chandpura , P.S. -Rataiya, Dist-Saran, Bihar
Failureto lodge any account of election expenses in the manner requiredby law
Sh. Sardha Ray S/o - Nathuni Rai Vill-Dolla, P.O. -Masarak, P.S. -Issuapur, Dist.- Saran, Bihar
Sh. Goutam Singh
Vill+ PO Kahin Jalalpur,
Dist. -Saran, Bihar
-do-
-do-
13.
Failure to lodge any account of election expenses
-do-
Ms. Anju Devi
Vill+PO-Kumana,
PS -Kopa,
Dist-Saran,
Bihar
-do-
14. -do-
-do-
Sh.manoj Kumar Tiwari
Vill+PO-Kumna,
PS -Kopa,
Dist-Saran,
Bihar
-do-
15. -do-
-do-
Sh .Mahesh Manjhi
Vill+PO- Inai,
PS-Revilganj ,
Dist- Saran, Bihar
-do-
16.
41-Chapra
-do-
17. -do-
Sh. Arun Kumar Singh Vill. -Newaji, Tola (Ketra) PO-Chapra, PS-Rivilganj , Dist-Saran, Bihar
Failure to lodge an account of election expenses inthe manner requiredby law
Failure to lodge anyaccount of election expenses
Sh . Nand Kishore Kumar
Rupganj , PO-Chapra,
Dist-Saran,Bihar
18. -do-
41-Chapra
M/s.NutanDevi
Gudri Rai Chowk,
PO-Chapra,
Dist-Saran,Bihar
-do-
-do-
19.
Failure to lodge any account of election expenses inthe manner requiredbylaw
-do-
Sh. Rabish Chandra
Gupta
Moh. Mauna Husse
ChapraSaran,
Bihar
2170 92/06-3 196
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 29, 2006/ SRAVANA 7, 1928
1
2
3 20.
41-Chapra General Election to the Legislative Assembly, 2005 from the State of Bihar
21 . -do-
44-Sonepur 22. -do-
45-Hajipur
52-Vailshali 23. -do-
159 -Chakai 24. -do-
25. -do-
160 -Jhajha
183 -Mokama 26. -do-
-do-
188 -Patna West 27.
-do-
188 -Patna West 28.
-do-
29. -do-
[PART I-SEC. 3( iii) ] 4
5
Failureto lodge any account of election expenses Sh . SanjayRai Moh. -Mubarak Lane Dahiyawan, PO-Chhapra, PS -Chhapra Town, Dist-Saran, Bihar
-do-
Sh . Ram Kumar Das Vill-Chaturpur, PO-Gopalpur, PS -Nayagawon, Saran,Bihar
-do-
Sh. Surendra Rai Vill-Litiyahi UrfAsmatpur, Singhia, PO-Ratanpura, PS -Gongabridge , Dist-Vaishali , Bihar
-do-
Sh. Pramod Kumar Rai Vill-Keshopur, PO -Waluka Ram, Dist-Vaishali , Bihar
-do-
Sh. Brahmadeo mandal Vill-Keshopharka, Sono , Jamui,Bihar
-do-.
Sh . Ashok Kumar Telwa Bazar, Jhajha, Jamui,Bihar
-do-
Sh. Bihari Mahto S/o Kailash Mahto , Vill-Malpur, PO-Praladpur, PS-Ghoswari, Distt-Patna, Bihar
-do-
Sh. Chanda Parveen R-Block Road No. -8, GPO-Patna, PS-Sachivalaya, Dist-Patna, Bihar
-do-
Sh . Mukesh Kumar Vill-KurjiBalupar PS-Digha, Distt -Patna, Bihar
-do-
Sh . Ram Kumar Mishra RailwayColony Awadhpuri , PO+PS -Digha, Patna, Bihar 197 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( iii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 29, 2000 लवण 7 , 1928
4
5
3
1
2
188 -Patna West
30.
Failure to lodge any account of electionexpenses General Election to the Legislative Assembly, 2005 from the State of Bihar
Sh . Sunil Kumar EastPatel Nagar, RoadNo. 5 House No.19 , Shastrinagar, Patna, Bihar
-do-
-do-
189 Patna Central
31.
M/ s . Usha Devi 45, Chandmari Road, Kankarbagh, Patna-20, Bihar
32.
-do-
-do-
M/s. Saraswati Sharma Shivpuri , PO- Anisabad, PS-Gardanibagh, Distt-patna, Bihar
-do-
-do-
33.
Failureto lodge any account of election expenses inthe manner requiredby law Failure to lodge any account of election expenses
Sh . Anjani Kumar
Lohianagar
Kankarbagh
Patna-20, Bihar
-do-
-do-
34. -do-
Sh. Manoj Kumar Bhushan lane EastLohanipur Kadamkuan , Patna, Bihar
35. -do-
-do-
-do-
Sh. VijayKumar Gulbighat, Mahendru , Patna-6, Bihar
-do-
-do-
36.
191 -Danapur
Manoj Kumar
49,Grand Square
Danapur, Cantt,
Distt. Patna, Bihar
192-Maner
-do-
37.
-do-
Sh. Kamal Kant At-Rampur Ismaile PO-Bahpura PS-Bihta Distt-Patna, Bihar
192-Maner
-do-
38. -do-
Sh. Sarma Ram
At-Katahara
PO-Maner
PS-Maner,
Distt -Patna, Bihar
-do-
-do-
194-Bikram
39.
M/ s . Kusum Devi
At&PO-Areap
PS-Bikram
Dist-Patna, Bihar
-do-
-do-
-do-
40.
Sh. VijayKumar Vill-Udaypura PO- Dhobiya, Kalapura PS-Naubatpur, Dist- Patna, Bihar 198
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29 , 2006/SRAVANA 7, 1928
[PART II-SEC . 3(iii)]
3
1
2
4
5 41.
194-Bikram
Failureto lodge any account of election expenses General Election tothe Legislative Assembly, 2005 from the State of Bihar
Sh. Baijnath Sharma Vill-Govindpur, Post-Datiyana, PS-Bikram, Distt -Patna, Bihar
42. -do-
-do-
-do-
Sh. Ramesh Kumar At& PO -Ajava, PS-Naubatpur, Dist-Patna, Bihar
43. -do-
-do-
-do-
Sh . Ram Sujan Chaudhary At & PO -Kunjawa PS -Bihta Dist-Patna,Bihar
44.
-do-
-do-
195-Paligaj
Sh. Pintu Sharma
Ai & PO- Ankاتن
PS-Paliganj
Patna,Bihar
45 .
-do-
-do-
-do-
Umesh Sharma At& PO- Kidwaipuri PS -Buddha Colony Patna, Bihar
46. -do-
-do-
230-Konch
Md . Naushad Alam Vill-Jahana, PO-Daurma, PS-Aanti, Dist-Gaya Bihar
-do-
-do-
47.
235-BodhGaya (SC)
Sh . Kishore Paswan Vill-Chotki Babbani Mocharim, Thana-Bodhgaya, Gaya Bihar
48. -do-
-do-
235-BodhGaya (SC)
Sh. Kali Prasad MiyanBigha, Bodhgaya , Dist-Gaya, Bihar
49. -do-
-do-
-do-
Sh. Raj Kumar Paswan ShekhpuraKhurd, Salepur Fatehpur, Belaganj , Gaya, Bihar
50. -do-
-do-
237-Fatehpur (SC)
Sh. ChandraManjhi Vill-Hemja, PO-Bhagausa PS-Waziraganj , Dist-Gaya, Bihar
[No.76/BR-LA/2006]
ByOrder
R.K. SRIVASTAVA, Secy.
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (iii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 29, 2006/ श्रावण 7, 1928
199 नई दिल्ली, 24 जुलाई , 2006
ARTICLE 329 (b ) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. CHALLENGING THE ELECTION OF SH. ATAL BEHARI BAJPAYEE UNDER SECTION- 100( 1) (d) ( iv) OF R.P. ACT, 1951 ( ACT NO. 43 OF 1951)
RESERVE JUDGMENT आ.अ. 70.-लोक प्रतिनिधित्व अधिनियम , 1951 (1951 का 43 ) की धारा 106 के अनुसरण में , भारत निर्वाचन आयोग 2004 की निर्वाचन अर्जी संख्या 2 में इलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय, लखनऊ बैंच, लखनऊ के तारीख 24 मार्च, 2005 के निर्णय को एतद्वारा प्रकाशित करता है ।
ElectionPetition No. 2 (E.P. ) of 2004
(निर्णय इस अधिसूचना के अंग्रेजी भाग में छपा है । ) .
Petitioner
Major S.N. Tripathi ( Sheshmani Nath Tripathi)
[सं. 82/उ.प्र. लो.स./2/2004 ( लख.) ]
Versus
आदेश से ,
ललित मोहन , सचिव
Election Commission of India and others
....Opposite Parties.
New Delhi , the 24th July, 2006
HON'BLE A. N. VARMA, J.
O.N. 70. In pursuance of section 106 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951 ) , the Election Commission of India hereby publishes the Judgement dated 24th March, 2005 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad , Lucknow Bench , Lucknow in Election Petition No. 2 of 2004 .
IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD , LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW
ELECTION PETITION NO . 2 OF 2004
This is an election petition filed by the petitioner under the provisions of Section 81 of the Representation ofPeople Act, 1951 ( to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) , calling in question the election of the returned candidate , respondent No. 4 from 16 - Lucknow Parliamentary Constituency, Lucknow. Apart from the returned candidate , the petitioner has impleaded the Election Commission of India through Chief Election Commissioner, Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, New Delhi , Returning Officer 16- Lucknow Parliamentary Constituency, Lucknow, and the B.J.P. (Bhartiya Janta Party) , through President, Resident ofAshok Road , New Delhi as Respondent No.4.
Major S.N. TRIPATHI SHESHMANI NATH TRIPATHI as popularly known, ie SN. Tripathi , son of Bhola Nath as enrolled in the Electoral Roll, aged about 63 years, R/o 'Karan Bhai Bhawan ' at KanchanpurMatiary, P.O. Chinhat, District- Lucknow (U.P. )
....Petitioner
Versus
2. Major S.N. Tripathi (Shesmani Nath Tripathi), an elector of the said Constituency, has filed the election petition onvariety of grounds . Except respondent No. 4 no one has appeared on behalf of the rest of the respondents to contest the election petition despite notice to them.
1. The Election Commission of India, through Chief Election Commissioner, Nirvachan Sadan, Ashok Road, New Delhi .
2. The Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry ofLaw and Justice , New Delhi.
3. The Returning Officer of 16 - Lucknow Parliamentary Constituency, Lucknow Collectorate Lucknow.
4. Sh. Atal Behari Bajpayee , father's name....... the Returned Candidate, R/o A-302, La Plaza, Lucknow.
3. According to the petitioner the election to the 16-Lucknow Parliamentary Constituency, Lucknow, has not been conducted in accordance with law. The law under which the election of the said Constituency has been conducted is no valid law. He has also challenged vires of various provisions of the Constitution as well as the Representation of People Act alongwith the Rules framed thereunder and the Symbols Orders . As per his averment, B.J.P. is an alien for 16 -Lucknow Parliamentary Constituency, Lucknow. The main ground upon which he has assailed the election of respondent No. 4 has been enumerated inparagraph 13 of the election petition which reads as follows:
5. The B.J.P. (Bhartiya Janta Party ) , through President, R/o 11 , Ashok Road, New Delhi .
....Opp. Parties
"13. That this election in which Sh. Atal Behari Bajpayee contested as a nominee ofthe aid B.J.P. , was inducted according to the terms of the 'Symbols Orders ' - Annexure No. 3 and his nomination as "Candidate " was accepted interms ELECTION PETITION U/S 81 OF R.P. ACT, 1951 (ACT NO . 43 OF 1951 ) ESTABLISHED UNDER
217045/06-4 200
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29, 2006/SRAVANA 7, 1928
[PART II-SEC. 3( iii)]
with the trial ofthe election petition.
ofthe 'Nomination FORM-2 -A' , Annexure No. 2 which are containing provisions whichwere made bytheElectionCommission and the Government ofIndia by flagrant ' non -adherence' and 'non- compliance' ofthe following provisions :--
(a) Constitutional provisions under Articles 13(2), 14, 19( 1 )(a) , 19(4), 21 , 81 , 84 102(1)(d) and324 to 326;
(b) Provisions of the Act -Sections-2 (a) , 2(e) , 2(f), 4, 14, 30 to 37, 62, 79(d) , 123(b) and 169;
(c).Provisions ofRule 5 ( 1 ) ofRules , 1961
8. Shri Kesari Nath Tripathi , Learned Senior Advocate for the respondent No.4 urged that Section 83 of theAct contemplates that an election petition shall contain aconcise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies. According to him the allegations made by the petitioner in the election petition do not amount to any statement of material fact, which ifproved will materially affect the result ofthe returned candidate . He further submits that omission of a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause ofaction and an election petition without material fact is not an election petition, at all under the provisions ofthe Act. As per his submission the allegations made in the entire election petition, do not mount to any statement ofmaterial fact which materially affects the result of the returned candidate . Thus , according to him an electionpetition, which does not disclose a cause of action is liable to be rejected in limine . He further submits that even if the ailegations made in the election petition, are taken to be true, still it does not disclose a cause of action and as such does not raise a triable issue .
as a consequence of which the entire election was vitiated and the election of the returned Candidate Sh. Atal Behari Bajpayee got materially affected which falls under Sections 100 (1) (d) ( iv) and 98 of the Act compeiiing the petitioner to raise question about the said election in the background of the overall Scheme of the Constitution and the laws settled in this behalf. "
4. As per his case the election of the returned candidate deserves to be declared as void on the grounds set out under Section 100( 1 ) (d) ( iv) of the Act . According tohim on account of the violation of the said provisions by the respondents , the election of respondent No. 4 was got materially affected. The ground of challenge has further beenelaborated in paragraph No.40 of the election petition.
9. The petitioner who has appeared in person and has conducted the case himself, has also filed written arguments .He vehemently argued that the election petition, cannot bedismissed at the initial stage . His argument is that the Court must proceed with the trial, frame issues and record evidence and only after the trial of the election. petition is concluded that powers under the Code of Civil Procedure should be exercised . The contention is that even ifthe election petition is liable to be dismissed, it shouldbe so dismissed after framing ofissues and after recording of evidence.His argument further is that the election petition does raise triable issues.
5. Respondent No. 4 apart from filing his written statement has also preferred an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code ofCivil Procedure read with Section 87(1 ) of the Act praying therein for rejecting the election petition on the ground that it does not disclose any cause ofaction.
10. As per his version since the entire election of 16-Lucknow Parliamentary Constituency, Lucknow, has been conducted in utter violation and flagrant disregard to various constitutional provisions as well as the provisions oftheAct as indicated by him in para 13 , it cannot be said that the election petition is bereft ofmaterial facts . He further argues that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure would not apply, therefore , the application preferred by respondent No. 4 for dismissal of the election petition at theoutset is totally misconceived and is not maintainable and thus deserves to be rejected. According to the petitioner the election petition cannot be thrown out at the threshold.
6. According to respondent No. 4 the election petition is completely bereft of material facts and does not disclose any cause of action and, thus, does not raise any triable issue. Even necessary material facts and ingredients in respect of the grounds and allegations have also not been alleged in the election petition . Thus , through the said application dismissal of the election petition at the hreshold is sought, firstly because the election petition does not disclose the material facts necessary to constitute a cause of action for filing the petition, secondly it does not raise an issue triable under the Representation of People Act and thirdly the trial of the present election petition will be an abuse of the process of the Court.
11. In support of his arguments he placed reliance upon the following cases :
(a) AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2140-State of Orissa Vs. Klockner and Company and others .
7. As the question raised goes to the root of the natter, therefore, the application preferred by respondent No. 4 under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. read with Section 87 ( 1) ofthe Act, is being taken up for decision before proceeding
(b) AIR 1998 Supreme Court 3085-M/ s . Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. Vs. Ganesh Property.
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (iii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 20 , 2006/ श्रवय 7, 1928
201
Procedure , 1908 ( 5 of 1908) for the verification of pleadings:
(c) AIR 1965 Supreme Court 295- Suraj Ratan Thirani & Others Vs. Azamabad Tea Co. Ltd. , & Others.
(d) AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1811-State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer & Others .
Provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form insupport of the allegation of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof.
(e) ( 1978) 1 Supreme Court Cases 405-Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. The Chief ElectionCommissioner.
(2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the samemanner as the petition . "
(f) (1973 ) 4 Supreme Court Cases 225- Kesvanand Bharati v. State ofKerala .
12. Section 81 of the Act prescribes the procedure for presentation of an election petition, which reads as follows:
14. The grounds upon which an election of a candidate can be declared as void are enumerated under Section 100. Section 100 ( 1) ( d) (iv) upon which the election ofrespondent No. 4 has been assailed, reads as follows:
"100- Grounds for declaring election to be void : (1) Subject to the provisions of sub -section ( 2) if the High Court is of opinion-
(a)
(b)
(c)
"81. Presentation of petition :~~(1 ) An election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub - section (1 ) of Section 100 and Section 101to the High Court by any candidate at such election or anyelectorwithin forty-five days from, but not earlier thanthe date ofelection of the returned candidate or ifthere are more than one returned candidate at the election and dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates .
(d)-that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate , has been materially affected-
Explanation : In this sub - section, " elector" means aperson who was entitled to vote at the election to which the election petition relates, whether he has voied at sucia election or noi .
or (i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination, (2) (Omitted)
(ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests ofthe returned candidate by an agent other than his election agent, or
(iii) by the improper reception , refusal or rejection ofany vote or the reception of any vote which is void, or (3) Every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned inthe petition and every such copy shall beattestedby the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition. "
(iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act.
13. Section 83 of the Act prescribes as to what should an election petition contain. It postulates that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts . The said Section runs as under:
the High Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void . "
"83. Contents of petition :-( 1 ) An election petition-
(a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies;
15. Section 87 of the Act prescribes the procedure before theHigh Court to be followed for trial of an election petition. According to the said Section every election petition shall be tried by the High Court, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure to the trial of the suits .
(b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and thedate and place of the commission ofeach such practice; and
(c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil
16. Thus what is clearly decipherable from the perusal of the aforesaid provisions is that an election petition should contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies and the said material fats are such that the result of the election , in so far as it concerns a returned candidate , is materially affected and it 202
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29 , 2006/SRAVANA 7 , 1928
shouldbe tried in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure with regard to the trial of the suits.
17. Question as to whether or not an election petition canbe dismissed at the threshold, in the event it does not state material facts and as such lead to no cause of action, came to be considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in thecasereported in A.I.R. 1986 Supreme Court 1253 Azhar Hussain versus Rajiv Gandhi . The Apex Court in para 11 held as follows :
"11. Inview of this pronouncement there is no escape from the conclusion that an election petition can be summarily dismissed if it does not furnish cause of action in exercise of the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure . So also it emerges from the aforesaid decision that appropriate orders in exercise of powers under the Code of Civil Procedure can be passed if the mandatory requirements enjoined by Section 83 of the Act to incorporate the material facts in the election petition are not complied with. This Court in Samant's case ( 1969) 3 SCC 238 : (AIR 1969 SC 1201) has expressed itself in no unclear terms that the omission of a 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 . So also in Udhav Singh's case ( 1977) 1 SCC 511 : (AIR 1977 SC744) the law has been enunciated that all the primary facts which must be proved by a party to establish cause of action or inis defence are material facis. In the contest of a charge of corrupt practice it would mean that the basic facts which constitute the ingredients of the particular corrupt practice alleged by the petitioner must be specified in order to succeed on the charge . Whether in an election petition a particular fact is material or not and as such required to be pleaded is dependent on the nature of the charge levelled and the circumstances of the case . All the facts which are cssential to clothe the petition with complete cause of action must be pleaded and failure to plead even a single material fact would amount to disobedience of the mandate ofSection 83 ( 1) ( a) . An election petition therefore can be and must be dismissed, if it suffers from any such vice . The first ground of challenge must therefore fail . "
18. The Courts in exercise ofpowers under the Code ofCivil Procedure , can also treat and take up any point and candismiss the suit without proceeding to record evidence ifthe Court is satisfied that the action would terminate in viewof the merits of a preliminary objection.
19. In A.I.R. 1986 Supreme Court Page 1534 Bhagwati PrasadDixit' Ghorewala' versus Rajeev Gandhi. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
"4. It is now well -settled that in election petitions pleadings have to be precise , specific and unambiguous and if the election petition does not
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( iii) ] disclose a cause of action it is liable tobe rejected in lmine."
" 16-On going through all the grounds mentioned in the petition we feel that they are so frivolous and vexatious that the only order tobe passed on the petition is the one which has been made by the High Court."
"17-The allegations in the election petition even if they are taken as true, do not disclose any cause of action . The High Court was, therefore, right in dismissing the petition on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action. "
20. The expression ' cause of action' as per the Law Lexicon-refer to the entire set of facts that give rise to an emforceable claim or everything which, ifnot proved, give defendant an immediate right tojudgment, every fact which ismaterial to be proved to entitile the plaintiff to succeed, every fact which the defendant had a right to traverse.
21. As per Black's Law Dictionary ' cause of action' means the fact or facts which give a person a right to judicial redress or relief against another. The legal effect of an occurrence in terms of redress to a party to the occurrence . A, situation or state offacts which would entitle party to sustain action and give him right to seek ajudicial remedy in his behalf, fact , or a state of facts , to which law sought to be enforced against a person or thing applies . Facts which give rise to one or more relations of right out Uciween two or more persons . Failure io perfumi legal obligation to do or refrain from performance of some act . Matter for which again may be maintained . Unlawful violation or invasion of right, a right which a party has to institute ajudicial proceeding .
22. Thus , as would appear the words " cause of action" denotes that those bundle of facts if traversed, would entitle the petitioner to the relief claimed.
23. In (2002) 2 Supreme Court Cases 294 ν. Narayanaswamy Vs. C.P. Thirunavukkarasu the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 23 held as follows:
" Itwill be thus seen that an election petition is based on the rights, which are purely the creature of a statute , and if the statute , renders any particular requirement mandatory, the court cannot exercise dispensing powers to waive non -compliance . For the purpose ofconsidering a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the election petition the averments in the petition should be assumed to be true and the court has to find out whether these averments disclose a cause of action or a triable issue as such . Section 81,83 ( 1 )
(c),86 readwith Rule 94-A of the rules and Form 25 are tobe read conjointly as an integral scheme. When so read if the court funds non -compliance it has to [ भाग - खण्ड 3 (iii ) ]
203 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 29 , 2006/ श्रावण 7 , 1928
uphold the preliminary objection and has no option
petitioner persists that the verification is correct and the affidavit in the form prescribed does not suffer from any defect the allegations of corrupt practices cannotbe inquired and tried at all . In such a case the petitionhas to be rejected on the threshold for non- compliance with the mandatory provisions of law as to pleadings . It is no part of the duty ofthe court suo motu even to direct furnishing of better particulars when objection is raised by the other side . Where the petition does not disclose any cause of action it has to be rejected. The court, however, cannot dissect the pleadings into several parts and consider whether each one of them discloses a cause of action. The petition has to be considered as a whole . There cannotbe a partial rejection of the petition. "
24. In(2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases page 522 Jaipal Singh versus Sumitra Mahajan (Smt. ) and another the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 7 observed as follows:
"7. Section 83 deal with contents of petition. It states that an election petition shall contain a concise statement ofmaterial facts , on which the petitioner relies and shall state full particulars of any corrupt practice which the petitioner alleges and which shall be signed by him and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure. In the case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Asstt . Charity Commr. It hasbeen held that Order 6 Rule 2 (1 ) CPC deals with basicruleofpleadings and decares that the pleadings has to state material facts and not the evidence , that there is a disctinction between " material facts " and "particulars" and the words " material fact " show that the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action must be stated. Omission ofa single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and consequently, the plaint becomes bad. The distinction between 'material facts ' and ' particulars ' was brought by Scott . L.J. in Bruce v. Odhams Press Ltd. in the following passage : (All ER. p . 294).
"The cardinal provision in Rule 4 is that the statement of claim must state the material facts . The word 'material ' means necesary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action and ifany one 'material ' statement is omitted , the statement of claim isbad; it is 'demurrable' in the old phraseology and in thenew is liable to be ' struck out ' under RSC Order 25 Rule 4 (See Philipps v. Philipps) ; or ' a further and better statement ofclaim ' may be ordered under Rule 7.
The function of 'particulars ' under Rule 6 is quite different. They are not to be used in order to fill material gaps in a demurrable statement of claim -gaps which ought to have been filled by apropriate statements of the various material facts which together constitute the plaintiffs cause of action. The except to dismiss the petition . There is difference between" material facts " and " material particulars" . While the failure to plead material facts is fatal to the election petition the absence of material particulars can be cured at a later stage by an appropriate amendment. " Material facts" mean the entire bundle offacts,which would constitute a complete cause of action and these must be concisely stated in the election petition, i.e. clause (a) of sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 83. Then under clause (b) of sub -section ( 1) of Section 83 the election petition must contain full particulars of any corrupt practice . These particulars are obviously different from material facts on which the petition is founded. A petition levelling a charge ofcorrupt practice is required by law to be supported by an affidavit and the election petitioner is obliged to disclose his source of information in respect of the commission of corrupt practice . He must state which of the allegations are true to his knowledge and which to his belief on information received and believed by him to be true . It is not the form of the affidavit but its substance that matters . To plead corrupt practice as contemplatedby law it has to be specifically alleged that the corrupt practices were committed with the consent of the candidate and that à particular electoral right of a person was affected . It cannot be left to time, chance or conjecture for the court to draw inference by adopting an involved process of reasoning . Where the alleged corrupt practice is open to two equal possible inferences the pleadings of corrupt practice must fail. Where several paragraphs of the election petition alleging corrupt practices remain unaffirmed under the verification clause as wel as the affidavit, the unsworn allegation could have no legal existence and the court could not take cognizance thereof. Charge of corrupt practice being quasi -criminal in nature the court must always insist on strict compliancewith the provisions of law. In such a case it is equally essential that the particulars of the charge ofallegations are clearly and precisely stated in the petition. It is the violation of the provisions of Section 81 ofthe Act which can attract the application of the doctrine ofsubstantial compliance . The defect ofthe type provided in Section 83 of the Act on the other hand can be dealt with under the doctrine of curability. On the principles contained in the Code of CivilProcedure. Non -compliance with the provisions ofSection 83 may lead to dismissal ofthe petition if thematter falls within the scope of Order 6. Rule 16 and order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Where neither the verifications in the petition nor the affidavit gives any indication of the sources of information ofthe petitioner as to the facts stated in thepetitionwhich are not to his knowledge and the
217095/ 06-5 204
[PART II-SEC . 3 (iii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29 , 2006/SRAVANA 7, 1928
use of particulars is intended to meet a further and quite separate requirement of leading' imposed in fairness andjustice to the defendant. Their function is to fill inthe picture ofthe plaintiff's cause ofaction with information sufficiently detailed to put the defendent onhis guard as to the case he had to meet and to enable him to prepare for trial . "
25. In A.I.R. 1969 Supreme Court 1201 SamantN. Bala Krishna etc. versus George Fernandez and others Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the word ' material' shows that the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause ofaction must be stated. Omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and the statement of claim becomes bad and a petition which merely cites the Sections cannot be said to disclose a cause of action. In para29 it held as follows:
particulars the name of hte person making the statement, with the date, time and place will be mentioned. The material facts thus will show the ground of corrupt practice and the complete cause ofaction and the particulars will give the necessary information to present a full picture of the cause of action. In stating the material facts it will not do merely to quote the words of the section because then the efficacyofthe words ' material facts' will be lost. The factwhich constitutes the corrupt practice must be stated that the fact must be correlated to one of the heads of corrupt practice . Just as a plaint without disclosingaproper cause ofaction cannot be said to be a good plant, so also an election petition without thematerial facts relating to a corrupt practice is no electionpetition at all. Apetition which merely cites the sections cannot be said to disclose a cause of actionwhere the all allegation is the making of a false statement . That statement must apear and the particulars must be full as to the person making the statement and the necessary information. From the petition used to be in two parts . The material facts had to be included in the petition and the particulars inaschedule. It is inconceivable that a petition could be filed without the material facts and the schedule by merely citing the corrupt practice from the statute . Indeed the penalty of dismissal summarily was cnjoined for petitions which did not comply with the requirement. Today the particulars need not be separatley included in a schedule but the distinction remains . The entire and complete cause of action mustbe in the petition in the shape of material facts, the particulars being the further information to complete the picture . This distinction is brought out by the provisions of Section 86 although the penalty ofdismissal is taken away. Sub -section (5) of that Sectionprovides:
(5) "The High Court may, upơn such terms as to costs and otherwise as it may deem fit, allow the particulars of any corrupt practice alleged in the petition to be amended or amplified in such manner asmay be its opinion be necessary for ensuring a fair and effective trial of the petition, but shall not allowany amendment of the petition which will have the effect of introducing particulars of a corrupt practice not previously alleged in the petition. "
26. InA.I.R. 1990 Supreme Court 19 Smt. Lata Devi (Mali ) V. Haru Rajwar the Apex Court in paras 18 and 21 observed as follows :
"29. Having dealt with the substantive law on the subject ofelection petitions we may now turn to the procedural provisions in the Representation ofPeople Act.Here we have to consider Ss . 81 , 83 and 86 of the Act . The first provides the procedure for the presentation of the election petition. The proviso to sub- section alone is material here. It provides that anelection petition may be presented at one or more ofthe grounds specified in sub - sec ( 1) of S. 100 and S. 101. that as we have shown above creates the substantive right . Section 83 then provides that the election petition must contain a concise statement ofthe material facts on which the petitioner relies and further that he must also set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges including as full a statement as possible of the names ofthe parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice. The section is mandatory and requires first a concise statement of material facts and then requires the fullest possible particulars. What is the difference between material fact and 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 isto present as full a picture ofthe cause ofaction with such further information in detail as to make the opposite party understand the cause the will have to meet . There may be some overlapping between material facts and particulars but the two are quite distinct . Thus the material facts will mention that a statement of fact ( which must be set out) was made and it must be alleged that it refers to the character and conduct of the candidate that it is false orwhich the returned candidate believes to be false or does not believe to be true and that it is calculated to prejudice the chances of the petitioner. In the
18 -In Inayatullah Khan v. Diwanchand Mahajan , (1958) 15 ele LR. 219 (Madh Pra) , where a nominated candidatewas found to have been disqualified under s .7&(d) oftheAct the question arose as to what had happenedto the election as a result. It was contended that the margin ofvotes was small and that the result [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (iii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 29 , 2006/श्रावण 7 , 1928
205
vote for a symbol irrespective of the candidature to whom it is allotted ."
27. Whenever a petition is based on the grounds as set out under Section 100 (i)(d) (iv) of the Act declaring the election tobe void, there must be a clear and unambiguous allegation that the result of the election has been materially affected and in addition thereto, the petitioner should further show that it has been materially affected by the non compliancewith the provisions ofReprsentation ofPeople Act or Rules framed thereunder . Where the allegation is that the election has been conducted in violation of any provision of Constitution or the Act, it is necessary to state as to in what manner such violation has materially affected the election of the returned candidate .
28. Throughout the entire fabric of the election petition, there is not even a single averment as to how and inwhat manner the election of the returned candidate is materially affected. Mere statement with regard to non compliance of any provision of the Act or the Constitution does not automatically gives an inference that the result has been materially affected .
ofthe election, must be taken to have been materially affected because Nandilal , a disqualified candidate , got 8000 odd votes , which in the event of his not contesting would have gone to Mahajan Evidence was led to show how the votes which went to Nandlal would have been divided and both sides claimed that if Nandlal had not contested the election , the votes would have gone to them . The Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that the evidence on this part of the case was exceedingly general and apart from the statement by the witnesses who came forward as to their opinion, there was nothing definite about it. All the evidence which had been brought to Court'snotice was not decisive of the matter under S. 100 of the Act in view of the test laid down in Vashist Narain Sharma's case (AIR 1954 SC 513)(supra) . It can, therefore, be taken as settled thai the party who wishes herein to get an election declared void has to establish by satisfactory evidence that the result of the poll had in fact been materially affected by the violation of Rule 10 (5 ) of the Rules . For doing this , it has to be demonstrated that the votes would have been diverted in such a way that the returned candidate would have been unsuccessful. In the instant case there was no evidence to demonstrate the returned candidate havingderived any benefit from of the change symbol ofthe election petitioner, Murura Dasi, to whom the 'bow and arrow' symbol was later allotted, was not the successful candidate . The election petitioner was required to show that such number of votes had gone in favour of the successful candidate instead of in favour of the petitioner, simplybecause of the change of symbol as would, without that number of votes , make the successful candidate unsuccessful . The petitioner, besides making bare statement, had not produced any other satisfactory evidence in support of such a proposition. "
29. In paragraph 28 of the election petition it has been averred that all the candidates who had filed their nominations and contested the election were qualified and the allotment of symbols had been made in accordance with the symbols order . There is no averment in the election petition that because respondent No. 4 was allotted symbols ' Lotus ' therefore the election was materially affected, or if any other candidate wanted Lotus symbol to be allotted to him but for want of which, the election of opposite party No. 4 has been materially affected. It has further not been demonstrated anywhere in the election petition, that as to how and in what manner the violation of theprovisions as set out in paragraph No. 13 have materially affected the election ofthe returned candidate . Only a bald averment has been made in the said paragraph that there hasbeena flagrant, non- adherence and non compliance of theconstitutional provisions under Articles 13 (2) , 14, 19 (1), (a) , 19 (4), 21 , 81 , 84, 102 ( I ) , (d) and 324 to 326; Sections 2(a), 2 (e), 2 (f), 4, 14, 30 to 37, 62, 79 (d), 123 (b) and 169 of theRepresentation ofPeople Act and Rule 5 ( 1 ) ofRules , 1961. Mere citing of Sections of a statute and Articles of the Constitution cannot be said to disclose a cause of action.
30. Article 13 (2) lays down that the State shall not make any lawwhich takes away or abridges the fundamental rights; Article 14 prescribes the principle of equality, Article 19(1) (a) contemplates the right to freedom of speech and expression; Article 21 provides for protection of life and personal liberty, Article 81 is in respect of composition of HouseofPeople and Article 84 is with regard to qualification formembership ofParliament while Article 102 ( 1 ) (d) speaks about the disqualification for membership and Article 324 to326pertain to election to the Parliament and Legislative Assembly.
"21. As was reiterated in Shiv Charan Singh v. ChandraBhanSingh, ( 1988 ) 2 SCC 12: (AIR 1988 SC 637), in the absence of any proof the result of an election cannot be held to be materially affected; and it is not permissible in law to set aside the election of the returned candidate on mere surmises and conjecturs . A decision in election petition can be given only on positive and affirmative evidence and not on mere speculation and suspicious, however strong they are . Indeed, in the instant case there is no such positive and affirmative evidence . Mere assertions by the election petitioner were not enough, nothing was alleged and proved against the successful candidate. There could be no proposition or contention that a candidate with a particular symbol would always be successful at the hustings or that a particularvoter or a number ofvoters would always 206
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 29 , 2006/ SRAVANA 7, 1928
31. It has not been stated or disclosed anywhere in the petition as to what is the violation and even if the said provisions have been violated in what manner the said violation has materially affected the result of the election ofthe returned candidate .
32. Rules 5 of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961 lays down the procedure by the Election Commission tobe followed with regard to specification of symbols that may be chosen by the candidates at elections in Parliamentary orAssembly Constituencies .
33. Section 2 (a) , 2 (e) and 2 (f) of the Act defines "Elector" and " Political Party" ; Section 4 prescribes qualification of membership of the House of people' ; Section 14 talks about the notification for general election; Section 30 to37 Speaks about the nomination of candidates; Section 62 lays down as to who has a right to vote; Section 79(d) talks about the electoral rights ; Section 123 (b) relates to corrupt practice and section 169 confers the right to makeRules.
34. Again there is not a single averment in the election petition as to with regard to violation of the aforesaid statutory provisions of the Act and ifviolated in what manner the same has materially affected the election ofthe returned candidate .
35. Thus , as would appear there is no statement of material fact which can be said to lead to a cause of action which can be tried by this Court in the present petition. From the cases referred to hereinabove and the discussion made the principle laid down by the Apex Court is that all the facts which are essential to clothe the petition with complete cause of action must be pleaded. Failure to plead even a single material fact would amount to disobedience of the mandate ofSection 83 ( 1 )( a) of the Act and thus will leadto rejection ofthe petition at the threshold . A petition which merely cites various Sections of a Statute and Articles of the Constitution cannot be said to disclose a cause of action. Where the petition does not disclose any cause of action it has to be rejected.
36. I have also gone through the cases relied upon by the petitioner in support ofhis case and am of the view that they have no application insofar as the facts and circumstances of the case at hand are concerned .
37. Having regard to the pleadings made by the petitioner and also upon reading of the petition, as a whole, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Election Petition is completely bereft of material facts so as to disclose a cause of action . In such a situation the petition hastobe rejected at the threshold for non -compliance with the mandatory provisions of law as to pleadings .
38. Thus in view of propositions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject and also in view of what has been discussed hereinabove , the application under Order 7 , Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure read
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( 1m) ]
with Section 87 ( 1 ) of the Representation of People Act 1951 deserves to be allowed .
39. As a result, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 87 ( 1 ) of the Representation ofPeople Act 1951 is hereby allowed. theElection Petition consequent thereto is dismissed.
Sd/- A. N. VARMA, J. 24-3-2005 [No. 82/UP-HP/2/2004 (Luc) ] ByOrder, LALIT MOHAN, Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 24 जुलाई , 2006
आ.अ. 71. लोक प्रतिनिधित्व अधिनियम , 1951 ( 1951 का 43) की धारा 116ग की उप धारा ( 2 ) के खण्ड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में. भारत निर्वाचन आयोग 2004 की निर्वाचन अर्जी संख्या 2 में इलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय , लखनऊ बैंच , लखनऊ के तारीख 24 मार्च, 2005 के निर्णय के विरुद्ध दाखिल की गई 2005 की सिविल अपील सं. 3577 में तारीख 7 नवम्बर , 2005 को दिए गए भारत के उच्चतम न्यायालय के निर्णय को इसके द्वारा प्रकाशित करता है ।
(निर्णय इस अधिसूचना के अंग्रेजी भाग में छपा है । ) [सं. 82/उ.प्र.-लो.स./2/2004 ( लख .) 1 ललित मोहन , सचिव NewDelhi, the 24th July, 2006
O.N. 71. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub- section (2) of Section 116C of the Representation of the People Act , 1951 (43 of 1951 ) , the.Election Commission of Indiahereby publishes the judgement dated 7th November, 2005ofthe Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 3577 of2005 arising from thejudgement dated 24th March , 2005 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad , Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Election Petition No. 2 of2004.
[No. 82/UP-HP/2/2004 (Luc. ) ] LALIT MOHAN, Secy .
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO . 3577 OF 2005
S. N. TRIPATHI
VERSUS ...APPELLANT( S)
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA ....RESPONDENT( S) ORDER The civil appeal is dismissed .
СЛ
(S.N. VARTAVA)
NewDelhi , November 7 , 2005 .
(C.K. THAKKER)
[No. 82/UP -HP/2/2004 (Luc.) ] ByOrder,
LALIT MOHAN , Secy.
Printed by the Manager, Govt. of India Press , Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi - 110054.