झारखÖड गजट

असाधारण अंक

झारखÖड सरकार ɮवारा Ĥकाͧशत

22 फाãगुन, 1947 (श०)

संÉ या – 104 राँची, शुĐवार, 13 माच[, 2026 (ई०)

मंिũमंडल (िनवाŊचन) िवभाग

--------

अͬधसूचना

13 माच[, 2026

संÉया-02/Ǔन0Û या0वा0-17-05/25/03 -- Ǔनवा[चन अजȸ सं०-01/2025 मɅ Ǒदये गये उÍच

Ûयायालय, झारखÖ ड, राँची के तारȣख 03 फरवरȣ, 2026 के आदेश से संबंͬधत भारत Ǔनवा[चन

आयोग कȧ अͬधसूचना संÉया-82/पूव[ अनु०-1/झार०-ͪव०स०/ई.पी.(01/2025)/2026 Ǒदनांक-25

फरवरȣ, 2026 को एतदɮवारा सव[साधारण कȧ जानकारȣ हेतु Ĥकाͧशत कȧ जाती है।

झारखÖड राÏयपाल के आदेश से,

(के० रͪव कुमार),

मुÉ य Ǔनवा[चन पदाͬधकारȣ-सह सͬचव

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) शुĐवार, 13 माच[, 2026

भारत िनवाŊचन आयोग

--------

अͬधसूचना

25 फरवरȣ, 2026/06 फाã गुन, 1947(शक)

सं0 82/पूव[ अनु०-1/झार०-ͪव०स०/ई.पी.(01/2025)/2026--लोक ĤǓतǓनͬध×व अͬधǓनयम,

1951 (1951 का 43) कȧ धारा 106 के अनुसरण मɅ, Ǔनवा[चन आयोग एतदɮवारा Ǔनवा[चन अजȸ

सं० 01/2025 मɅ Ǒदये गये झारखÖ ड उÍ च Û यायालय के तारȣख 03 फरवरȣ, 2026 के आदेश को

Ĥकाͧशत करता है।

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) शुĐवार, 13 माच[, 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

E.P. No. 01 of 2025

With

I.A. No. 12722 of 2025

---------

Hiralal Sankhwar @ Hiralal Mahato, son of Late Bistu Mahato,

resident

Village Tola Konartand, Bhikharajpur Post and P.S.-Baliapur,

DistrictDhanbad

… … … … … …

… … Petitioner

Versus

Chandradeo Mahato, son of Sri Anand Mahato, resident of Village-

Baradaha, Post-Baliapur, P.S. Baliapur, District-Dhanbad

… … … …

. … … Respondent

---

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR

CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate

Mr. Shiwam Lath, Advocate

For the Respondents : Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate

Mr. Arshad Hussain, Advocate

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Samarendra, Advocate

Mr. Parth Sarthi, Advocate

Mr. Vishnu Kumar Sharma, Advocate

---

JUDGMENT

C.A.V. ON: 19.01.2026.

PRONOUNCED ON: 03.02.2026.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for

the respondent on the interlocutory application for rejection of the

election petition.

Instant interlocutory application is filed under Order VII Rule

11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 86(1) of

Representation of People Act, 1951 for rejection of plaint in this

election petition.

The present election petition is filed under Sections 80 and 81

read with Section 100 (1) (a) (b) (d) (i) (iv) of the Representation of

People Act, 1951 (herein after referred to as Act, 1951) challenging

the validity of the election of the respondent- Chandradeo Mahato,

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) शुĐवार, 13 माच[, 2026

returned candidate from 38, Sindri Assembly Constituency to the

Jharkhand State Legislative Assembly in the election held in

October/November, 2024. Respondent was elected with a total

1,05,136 votes, whereas total number of votes cast in favour of the

runner was 1,01,688, who was the official candidate of BJP. Election

Petitioner was the official candidate of All India Forward Bloc in

whose favour 737 votes were cast in the election.

Challenge to the validity of the election, is mainly on the

following grounds: -

a. Deposit of security money of Rs.10,000/- was not made in

accordance with the Section 34(2) of Act, 1951 as it was not

made with the Returning Officer concerned, nor in the

Government treasury, but with the Nazir, who cannot be said

to be functionary notified under the Act, 1951.

b. Respondent submitted his nomination papers in four sets

along with the required affidavit. In the affidavit sworn in

the office of Shri Ram Prasad Mahato, Notary Public,

Dhanbad, the required prescribed stamps were not affixed on

the affidavit. The Advocate Welfare Fund Ticket of ₹30 as

well as Advocate Clerk Stamp of ₹5 were not affixed. Out of

the four sets of affidavits filed along with the nomination

papers, only two were in original, whereas other two were

xerox copy of the original affidavit.

c. Voters had been misled during the election campaign as the

respondent had claimed himself to be the candidate of

भारतीय कàयुǓनèट पाटȹ (माले) (CPI ML), whereas he had

filed the nomination paper as official candidate of

Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation).

Objection is to the omission of word ‘liberation’ in the

election pamphlets.

d. It is also averred in the election petition that declaration with

regard to conviction in pending criminal cases was not as per

the Act, 1951. As per the instruction and guidelines, all the

candidates have to declare about their conviction and

pending criminal cases in the nomination paper and also the

details thereof was to be published in two leading

newspapers. This was not complied with, and the publication

with regard to it, made in the daily newspaper, Hindustan

(Hindi) was misleading.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) शुĐवार, 13 माच[, 2026

The grounds of rejection of plaint taken on behalf of the

respondent can be summed up as under:

a. Averments made in the election petition, do not disclose a

cause of action for declaring the election to be invalid..

b. There is failure on the part of the election petitioner to

comply with mandatory requirement of Sections 81, 82 and

83 of the Act, 1951. It is contended that there is non-

compliance to Section 81(3) of the Act, 1951 as the true

copy of the election petition was not served upon the

respondent. The copy which has been given as a xerox copy,

is not duly attested as provided under Section 86 of the Act,

1951. Non-compliance of Section 83 will by itself entail a

rejection of election petition, as Section 83 is couched in

mandatory terms by use of “shall” in the said provision. This

is further buttressed by Rule 94 (a) of the Conduct of

Election Rules, 1961. It is argued that election petition

cannot be entertained in a fanciful manner, unless and until

averments made disclose the material facts to hold an

election as null and void, the same cannot be entertained.

These principles have been enunciated in Kanimozhi

Karunanidhi Vs. A. Santhana Kumar reported in AIR 2023

SC 2366 and followed in Karim Uddin Barbhuiya Vs.

Aminul Haque Laskar & Ors. reported in AIR 2024 SC

2193. The election petition was held to be fit for rejection on

account of non-compliance to the requirement of Section

83(1)(a) of the Act, 1951.

c. Validity of an election must relate to the grounds specified in

Section 100 of the Act, 1951 as held by Hon’ble Apex Court

in Bhagwati Prasad Dixit (Ghorewala) Vs. Rajeev Gandhi

(1986) 4 SCC 78 and in Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal

Vs. Rajiv Gandhi reported in 1987 supplementary SCC 93.

By referring to these authorities, it is argued that unless the

pleadings of the election petition are precise, the courts

cannot enter into a fishing expedition where factual

assertions have not been made as per the requirement

mandated by the Act, 1951.

d. Averment made in para-26 of election petition is a false

statement given on affidavit that the respondent had been

convicted on 12.02.2020 in U.R. Case No.1177 of 2014 in

Cr. Appeal Case No.39 of 2020, which was pending in the

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) शुĐवार, 13 माच[, 2026

Court of A.D.J.-VIII, Dhanbad. The certified copy of the

judgment delivered in U.R. Case No. 1177 of 2014 is filed

today which is kept on record. By referring to this judgment,

it is contended that the respondent was not even an accused

which will be apparent from the cause title of the judgment.

Knowing full well about the falsity of charge, para 23 to 26

of the election petition were not deliberately verified. A false

averment made in election petition is itself a ground for

rejection of plaint as held by the Apex Court in C.P. John

Vs. Babu M. Palissery & Ors., (2014) 10 SCC 547, wherein

pleadings with respect to the two criminal cases were found

to be incorrect, which among other reasons became grounds

for rejection of a plaint.

e. It is submitted that election petitioner in effect seeks to make

out a case of corrupt practice as defined under Section 133

of the Act, 1951 and in order to make out such a case, the

imperative requirement as mandated under Section 83(1b) of

the Act 1951 read with Rule 94(A) of the Conduct of

Election Rules, 1961 is that a separate affidavit should be

sworn before a Magistrate of the First Class or a Notary or a

Commissioner of Oaths in Form-25. This mandatory

requirement has not been followed in the present election

petition. As per Rule 94(A) of the Conduct of Election Rules

in Form-25, this affidavit does not answer the requirement of

Form-25.

Lastly, it is contended that the plea of omission of ‘liberation’

in the campaigning, wherein the returned candidate has been shown

to be candidate of भाकपा (माले) (CPI ML) Communist Party of

India (MALE) and not CPI (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation), has

neither caused any prejudice to the election petitioner nor it has

misled the public at large and, therefore, will have no bearing. It

cannot be said that the publication can be attributed to the respondent

personally and this aspect has been considered by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in the case of C.P. John (supra) in para 44, wherein it has been

held that the statement of fact in the publication must be false and it

should be related to the personal character or conduct of any

candidate or in relation to the candidature or withdrawal of any

candidate. Statement must be reasonably calculated to prejudice the

prospects of that candidate’s election. The said omission, which is

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) शुĐवार, 13 माच[, 2026

urged, did not compromise or prejudice the prospect of the election

petitioner.

Sum and substance of the argument advanced on behalf of the

respondent is that averments made in the pleadings do not prima

facie disclose that the returned candidate or his candidate had

committed any corrupt practice or there were any substantive ground

for rejection of his nomination. Omission of word ‘liberation’ in the

pamphlet was superficial and did not in any way materially affect the

result of the election. Security deposits were made and quibbling

over the authority with which it was deposited does not go to the root

of the matter. They do not disclose any corrupt practice on the part of

respondent. It is also not in dispute that two original affidavits were

filed in support of the nomination paper and rest of two were

photocopies. There is no allegation of false affidavit made. In the

absence of prejudice to the election petitioner, the election petition

cannot be entertained. Reliance in this regard is placed on Ajhar

Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi, (1986 Suppl. SCC 315) Para 25.

It is argued by learned counsel for the Election Petitioner that

the factual averments made in para 26 of the election petition are

with regard to the newspaper publication in the daily newspaper

(Hindustan) on 03.01.2024 with regard to conviction in criminal case

against the respondent. This is a fact which cannot be ascertained at

the present stage and can only be decided after the parties get an

opportunity to lead evidence. It was incumbent on the part of the

respondent/returned candidate, who made correct paper publication.

It is contended that under Section 34 of the Act, 1951 the

mandate is specific that the security deposit is to be made with the

returning officer in cash. In Charan Lal Sahu Vs. Fakaruddin Ali

Ahmad & Ors., (1975) 4 SCC 832, wherein the security deposit was

tendered by the candidate in the presidential election by way of

cheque that became the ground of rejection of his candidature and

was upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

10. It is argued that in almost similar matter, for rejection of claim

filed in Santosh Hembram Vs. Ravindra Nath Mahto in Election

Petition No. 06/2020, the petition for election was rejected by the

co-ordinate Bench of this Court and was upheld by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in Special Leave to Appeal No. 4574/2024.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) शुĐवार, 13 माच[, 2026

11. Lastly, it is argued that the rejection of plaint for election

petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC will be warranted only

where the petition fails to disclose the cause of action. In the instant

case, the averment disclose the cause of action and raise triable issue,

which cannot be decided at this stage.

ANALYSIS

12. Grounds under which an election petition may be dismissed has

been summed up in Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar,

(2024) 18 SCC 592 as under,

27.1. Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act, 1951 mandates that an

election petition shall contain a concise statement of material

facts on which the petitioner relies. If material facts are not

stated in an election petition, the same is liable to be dismissed

on that ground alone, as the case would be covered by clause

(a) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code.

27.2. The material facts must be such facts as would afford a

basis for the allegations made in the petition and would

constitute the cause of action, that is, every fact which it would

be necessary for the plaintiff/petitioner to prove, if traversed in

order to support his right to the judgment of court. Omission of

a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause of

action and the statement of plaint would become bad.

27.3. Material facts mean the entire bundle of facts which

would constitute a complete cause of action. Material facts

would include positive statement of facts as also positive

averment of a negative fact, if necessary.

27.4. In order to get an election declared as void under Section

100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act, the election petitioner must aver

that on account of non-compliance with the provisions of the

Constitution or of the Act or any Rules or Orders made under

the Act, the result of the election, insofar as it concerned the

returned candidate, was materially affected.

27.5. The election petition is a serious matter and it cannot be

treated lightly or in a fanciful manner nor is it given to a

person who uses it as a handle for vexatious purpose.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) शुĐवार, 13 माच[, 2026

27.6. An election petition can be summarily dismissed on the

omission of a single material fact leading to an incomplete

cause of action, or omission to contain a concise statement of

material facts on which the petitioner relies for establishing a

cause of action, in exercise of the powers under clause (a) of

Rule 11 of Order 7CPC read with the mandatory requirements

enjoined by Section 83 of the RP Act.

Grounds on which election of a returned candidate can be

declared void is provided in Section 100 of the Act which is as

under: -

(1)

Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the High

Court is of opinion—

a. that on the date of his election a returned candidate was not

qualified, or was disqualified, to be chosen to fill the seat

under the Constitution or this Act or the Government of

Union Territories Act, 1963 (20 of 1963)]; or

b. that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned

candidate or his election agent or by any other person with

the consent of a returned candidate or his election agent; or

c. that any nomination has been improperly rejected; or

d. that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a

returned candidate, has been materially affected—

i. by the improper acceptance of any nomination, or

ii. by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of

the returned candidate by an agent other than his

election agent, or

iii. by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any

vote or the reception of any vote which is void, or

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, the High Court shall declare the

election of the returned candidate to be void.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) शुĐवार, 13 माच[, 2026

(2) If in the opinion of the High Court, a returned candidate

has been guilty by an agent, other than his election agent, of any

corrupt practice but the High Court is satisfied—

a. that no such corrupt practice was committed at the election

by the candidate or his election agent, and every such

corrupt practice was committed contrary to the orders, and

without the consent, of the candidate or his election agent;

b. [Omitted];

c. that the candidate and his election agent took all reasonable

means for preventing the commission of corrupt practices

at the election; and

d. that in all other respects the election was free from any

corrupt practice on the part of the candidate or any of his

agents, then the High Court may decide that the election of

the returned candidate is not void.

13. From the above provision, it is apparent that for declaring

election void, grounds must conform with requirements of Section

100 of the Act, 1951. On the date of scrutiny of nomination,

candidate must be qualified and must not have incurred

disqualification under Articles 84 and 102 of the Constitution of

India or there must not have been non-compliance with Section 33 or

Section 34 of the Act. In order to make out a case under Section

100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act, 1951, it was necessary for petitioner to

specifically plead that election was materially affected by non-

compliance with provisions of the Act, 1951 or Rules made

thereunder that the candidate indulged in corrupt practice. It is not

open to an election petitioner to simply raise an allegation of corrupt

practices; it is as much necessary that averment made with respect to

practice should be specifically supported by an affidavit.

14. Having set out the principles while considering an election

petition, matter for consideration before this Court is whether the

averments made in the pleading are sufficient to launch the trial or

the election petition is fit to be dismissed at the threshold. It is trite

law that while considering a petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the

CPC, defence is not to be considered, and it is only to be seen

whether cause of action is made out on the averments made in the

plaint.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) शुĐवार, 13 माच[, 2026

15. As discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, averment do not state

about the security money having not been deposited, but is confined

to the allegation that it was made with the Nazir and not with the

Returning Officer. This is something very peripheral and cannot be a

ground to declare the election to be invalid. During course of

argument, it has not been denied by the election petitioner that

security money had been deposited by him in the same mode and

manner.

16. The second plea of Advocate Welfare Fund Ticket or Advocate

Clerk Stamp having not been affixed on the affidavit, is equally

flippant. In any case, the omission to affix such stamp was on the

part of the Notary and the returned candidate, cannot be held liable

for the same.

17. The other ground is omission of ‘liberation’ in the election

pamphlets, although the returned candidate was an official candidate

of CPI (ML) Liberation. This omission cannot by any stretch of

imagination be said to mislead the voters to the detriment of the

election petitioner. Each and every discrepancy in election campaign,

cannot by itself be said to come within meaning of corrupt practice

so as to make it a ground to declare the election as invalid.

Discrepant statement during election campaign should have the

effect or potential to qualitatively influence the election result. It is

difficult to comprehend how this omission did materially affect the

election result. In order to call it a discrepant and misleading

statement so as to be called corrupt practice under Sub-section 4 of

Section 123 of the Act, 1951, it should be reasonably calculated to

prejudice the prospects of the other contesting candidates in the

election, by misleading the voters. This Court is of the view that the

omission was inconsequential and cannot be said to have in any way

influenced the election result. This plea even if it is accepted, is not

sufficient for the relief claimed in the election petition.

18. Coming to the last plea of misleading notification in daily newspaper

with regard to conviction of the returned candidate, there is no

averment whatsoever to show that the returned candidate had been

convicted of an offence, which was concealed while nomination

paper was filed or in the publication made in the daily newspaper. On

the contrary, the certified copy of judgment passed in U.R. Case

No.1177 of 2014 filed during the course of hearing, goes to shows

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) शुĐवार, 13 माच[, 2026

that returned candidate had not even been made an accused in this

case. The statement as given in para 26 of the election petition, ex-

facie is false. It substantiates the argument advanced on behalf of the

petitioner that for this reason paragraphs 23 – 26 were not verified.

Such a false statement is itself a ground for dismissal of the election

petition in view of the ratio laid down in by the Apex Court in C.P.

John Case (supra).

19. The pleadings raised in the instant election petition, does not disclose

a cause of action for the relief claimed so as to lead the election

petition to any meaningful result. There is no assertion of fact on

which a prima facie inference can be drawn that the petitioner had

given a false statement on affidavit or that corrupt practice has been

committed by him or by Election Agent or by any other person with

his consent or that there was non-compliance of provisions of

Constitution or this Act within the meaning of the Representation of

People Act, 1951 For the reasons discussed above, this Court is of

the view that this is a fit case for rejection of plaint under Order VII

Rule 11(a) of the CPC. Election petition is a serious matter and

elected candidate cannot be dragged into a litigation on such sketchy

pleadings.

20. Interlocutory application for rejection of plaint (I.A. No. 12722 of

2025) is allowed and the plaint of the election petition is rejected.

Election petition stands dismissed with cost. Cost assessed to

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand). Pending Interlocutory application, if

any, stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.),

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

Dated 03.02.2026

Anit

आदेश से,

(तनुज कुमारȣ),

सͬचव

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) शुĐवार, 13 माच[, 2026

ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

-------------

NOTIFICATION

25^th February, 2026/6 Phalguna, 1947(Saka)

No. 82/ES-1/JKD-LA/EP/(01/2025)/2026 - In pursuance of Section 106

of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), the Election Commission

hereby publishes the Order dated 03^rd February, 2026 of the Jharkhand High Court

in Election Petition No. 01 of 2025.