Allahabad High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Election Of BJP MLA From Tundla

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a petition challenging the election of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLA Prem Pal Singh Dhangar from the Tundla assembly seat of the state's Firozabad district. A bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal dismissed the plea filed by Prem Pal Singh on the ground of non-disclosure of material facts while filing the election petition. In brief, it was the case of the petitioner that the Tundla Constituency is reserved for the Scheduled Castes and, since respondent no.1 belongs to the Gaderia/Pal/Baghel caste, which is recognised as an Other Backward Class (OBC) in the State of UP, his candidature for the Constituency was ab initio null and void. During the pendency of the election petition, the petitioner filed an amendment application and prayed for adding material facts; however, the amendment application was dismissed on the ground that there was no disclosure in the application as to the amendment sought. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred a second amendment application for amending the election petition to add material facts. Respondent no. 1 opposed this second application on the ground that it would change the nature of the election petition and that no material facts could be added after the petition had been filed, and at this stage, only material particulars could be supplemented. Furthermore, respondent no. 1 also moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for the dismissal of the election petition on the ground that incomplete material facts had been stated; therefore, he argued that no cause of action had been made out and the petition was liable to be rejected. Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Virendra Singh submitted that by the proposed amendment, no new facts were being added and that the facts now being sought to be introduced had already been stated in the grounds of the election petition. On the other hand, Advocate AP Tewari, appearing for respondent no. 1, submitted that there is a distinction between 'material facts' and 'material particulars'. He contended that in an election petition, there must be a concise statement of material facts, and if these are not disclosed, the defect is fatal and cannot be cured at a later stage, as was being sought to be done by the petitioner. High Court's Observations At the outset, the bench examined the scheme of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to note that an election petition questioning an election has to be presented under Section 81 on the grounds enumerated under Sections 100 and 101. It also noted that Section 83 provides for the contents of an election petition and specifies what material facts and particulars must be disclosed in a petition challenging an election. Importantly, the Court referred to Sub-section (1)(a) of Section 83, which is a mandatory provision requiring that an election petition must contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies. Sub-section (1)(b) provides for the setting forth of full particulars of any corrupt practice alleged, including a full statement, as far as possible, of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice. The bench also took note of Section 86(1), which provides for the dismissal of an election petition that does not comply with the provisions of Sections 81, 82, or 117. Against the backdrop of the scheme of the 1951 Act, the Court noted that in the instant case, it was an admitted position that the election petition had been filed with certain material facts disclosed, but the first amendment application was dismissed due to failure to specify what amendments were being sought. Thereafter, a second amendment application was filed without the leave of the Court, seeking to introduce new material facts. The Court reiterated the well-settled legal position that material facts must be disclosed at the time of filing the election petition as per Section 83(1)(a) and no amendment can be carried out subseuquently. It added that the same applies to the pleading of a suit where the material fact has to be disclosed in view of Rule 2 of Order VI in the pleading by a party relying for his claim or defence. The bench also stressed that Material facts are essential to the pleading on which the entire claim of the party rests, and that non-disclosure of such material facts is fatal to the proceeding. “Order VII Rule 11(a) clearly provides for rejection of a plaint in case of non disclosure of cause of action. Similarly, in an election petition, if the petitioner does not disclose the material fact, it leads to an inevitable conclusion that an incomplete cause of action has been set up and the petition become bad and liable to be dismissed. The defect is not curable as it leads to the root of the case, while it is not the same in case of non disclosure of entire...

Allahabad High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Election Of BJP MLA From Tundla

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags