HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO E.A.NO.66 OF 2011, E.A.NO.1062 OF 2009, E.A.NO.14 of 2010, E.A.NO.212 OF 2010 AND E.P.NO.16 OF 2009 DATED: 30.09.2011 E.A.NO.66 OF 2011, Dasyam Vifnaya Bhaskar .. Petitionerf/R1 And Parcha Kodanda Rama Rao and others .. Respondents E.A.NO.1062 OF 2009 M.Ravinder Reddy ..Petitioner And Parcha Kodanda Rama Rao and others .. Respondents E.A.NO.14 of 2010,and E.A.NO.212 OF 2010 Parcha Kodanda Ram .. Petitioner And Dasyam Vinaya Bhaskar and others .. Respondents E.P.NO.16 OF 2009 Parcha Kodanda Ram .. Petitioner And Dasyam Vinaya Bhaskar and others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO E.A.NO.66 OF 2011, E.A.NO.1062 OF 2009, E.A.NO.14 of 2010 And E.A.NO.212 OF 2010 AND E.P.NO.16 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: E.A.No. 66 of 2011 is filed by the respondent No.1 in the main election petition to reject the Election Petition No. 16 of 2009 as not maintainable. 2. E.A.No.1062 of 2009 is filed by the respondent No.3 in the main election petition to reject the Election Petition No.16 of 2009 as not maintainable. 3. E.A.No.212 of 2010 is filed by the petitioner in the election petition seeking to amend the verification portion in the place of the words “the facts stated above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, belief and legal advice” and in the place of para No.2 of the affidavit in form-25 filed along with E.P. incorporating the following paras: a) that the statements made in paragraphs para (d), para (e) at internal page No.3 and para (e) at internal page No.5 and unnumbered para 2 at internal pages 12 and 13 of the Election Petition about the commission of the corrupt practice of publishing surrogated news in various Telugu daily newspapers by paying the various newspaper offices and not showing the expenditure incurred for publishing such surrogated news in the account of each of the respondents 1 to 3 submitted to the Returning Officer and the particulars of such corrupt practices mentioned therein are true to my knowledge; b) that the statements in paragraphs paras (a) to (c) and (f) of the Election Petition about the commission of the corrupt practice of publishing surrogated news in the various news Telugu daily newspapers by paying the various newspaper offices and the particulars of such corrupt practice mentioned therein are to true to my information; c) (e) that the statements in paragraph – in unnumbered para 1 in the middle of the internal page No.12 of the Election Petition about the obligation of the candidate to furnish account of expenditure to the Returning Officer and the particulars thereof are true as legal advice’ 4. E.A.No.14 of 2010 is filed by the petitioner in the main election petition seeking amendment as mentioned in the petition by adding certain sentences in para ‘g’ at page 8 of the election petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties. 6. The ultimate decision to be rendered being as to whether the election petition can be dismissed for not pleading the material facts and furnish full particulars relating to corrupt practices on the applications made by the first and third respondents, all these applications are being disposed of by the following common order. 7. Parcha Kodanda Rama Rao filed Election Petition No.16 of 2009 against the respondents 1 to 6 in the main election petition praying for the following reliefs: i) To declare the election of the respondent No.1 to Warangal West (LAC105), A.P. as null and void and consequentially disqualify the 1st respondent from contesting the elections for 6 years. ii) To disqualify respondents 2 and 3 from contesting the elections for 6 years. iii) To direct the respondents 4 and 5 to discharge their statutory responsibility by taking action against respondent 1 to 3 etc. who resorted to corrupt practices during the Assembly elections 2009 so that the officers performing the role of respondents 4 and 5 draw a lesson from these incidents and see that the complaints regarding surrogated advertisements are promptly acted upon and continuous check on the expenditure on the candidates for these kinds of clandestine publicity mechanism, so that their expenditure of the candidates will not exceed and that candidates declare every expenditure in their statement of expenditure, and iv) To “direct the 6thy respondent to enquire and ascertain as to which candidate paid how much money to which of the newspaper organizations” and whether or not the candidates (respondents 1 to 3 ) as well as the newspaper organizations i.e. Andhra Jyothi, Eenadu, Andhra Prabha, Saakshi, Surya, Vartha accounted for the amount to and received, to the Income Tax authorities and submit a report to this Hon’ble Court and award such punishment which is envisaged under the relevant provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 against the violators; 8. The brief averments of the election petition may be stated as follows: The election notification for Warangal West (LAC105), A.P. State Legislative Assembly Constituency was issued on 02.03.2009 for holding elections. The election was held on 16.04.2009. In the said election, apart from the election petitioner, respondents 1 to 3 contested along with other candidates. 10. During the campaign between 29th March, to 16th April, 2009, it was alleged that the respondents 1 to 3 tried to outwit the other candidates by getting issued surrogate advertisements or paid news in local editions of the Telugu Newspapers almost every day including the polling day of election. The respondents 1 to 3 had spent huge amount of money beyond prescribed limits of expenditure and in turn indulged in corrupt practices of unduly influencing the votes to decide in their favour and in the said process respondent No.1 was successful in influencing the highest number of voters in his favour by propagating wrongful information that there was enormous public campaign and that the voters decided to vote for him. Because of the false campaign by resorting to getting the surrogated advertisements/paid news published, there could not be a fair and free election and that there was no scope for the petitioner, who contested on behalf of the recognized political party to win the election. The petitioner issued notice to the respondent No.1 as well as 4th respondent-Returning Officer about surrogate advertisements/paid news agencies being published in several Telugu daily newspapers by receiving huge amounts from the respondents 1 to 3. Calling for explanation from the respondent No.3 to give out the expenditure incurred in the election and also asking the 4th respondent to take action against the first respondent and the newspaper organizations, it is said that the fourth respondent did not take any action and the first respondent did not give any reply. 11. Though the dates on which the said surrogate advertisements/ paid news items have been published which were furnished in the election petition, no details about the said news items and the basis on which the paid news items have been published by Telugu daily newspapers’ was not disclosed in the election petition, from the various allegations which are in general terms averred in the election petition, it can be understood that the Telugu daily newspapers published, certain news items which are in the nature of influencing the minds of the voters to lean in favour of the respondents 1 to 3. Thus, according to the election petitioner, the respondents 1 to 3 and the said Telugu daily newspaper organizations resorted to corrupt practices with a view to prompt the candidates by receiving huge amount from the respondents 1 to 3. 12. The election petition was opposed by the respondents 1 to 3 mainly contending that the election petition does not pleaded the corrupt practices resorted to by the respondents 1 to 3. There were no material facts relating to the allegations of respondents 1 to 3 paying huge amounts to the Telugu daily newspaper organizations for getting the paid news published and that there was no proper verification of copy of the affidavit sent to the first respondent which was filed by the election petitioner in support of his election petition. 13. In E.A.No.66 of 2011 filed by the first respondent and E.A.No.1062 of 2009 filed by the respondent No.3 respectively to reject the election petition, the following contentions have been urged. 14. The entire pleadings in the election petition are vague, unnecessary, frivolous, fictitious, mischievous, unconstitutional and contrary to law. The petitioner did not outwit the concise material facts and failed to plead grounds and ingredients as required under Sections 83, 100 read with Sections 77 and 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1959. The first respondent in particular stated that he submitted his resignation in the month of March, 2009 to the Speaker of A.P. State Legislative Assembly and the same has been accepted and notified. He further submitted that on subsequent bye-election held in the month of October, 2010, he had been re-elected as a member of the Legislative assembly to the same constituency, in view of his resignation as member of the legislative assembly for the election held in 2009, which is a subject matter of the election petition. The election petition itself became infructuous and on this ground alone, the election petitions were dismissed by this Court vide E.P.Nos.3 and 4 of 2009. The respondents 1 to 3 denied to have indulged any corrupt practices of paying any amounts to the daily newspaper organizations for the purpose of publishing surrogated advertisements/paid news. Whatever expenditure they had incurred in respect of the election, they submitted a statement to the election authority as required by law. It is also further contended by them that the election petitioner did not file any affidavit in support of alleged corrupt practices under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act read with Rule 24-A of the Conduct of Election Rules and therefore, the election petition is not maintainable. 15. Another contention raised is that the copy of the election petition and the documents served on respondent No.3 are not attested, inasmuch as there is no endorsement as true copy with signature of the election petitioner. The copy of the election petition served on the third respondent is also incorrect and result of non- compliance of the requirements, inasmuch as part of para ‘g’ at page ‘8’, have not been typed or written and a gap is left. It is further submitted that in view of the absence of signature of the election petitioner with certified true copy, the election petition and documents served on the respondent No.3 cannot be said to be true copies of the originals. 16. It is also submitted that there is no allegation with precision in the election petition as to how much excessive expenditure is spent. According to the third respondent, the names of the persons, date, time, place and the manner of excessive expenditure for the purpose of getting alleged paid news published is not at all pleaded as well as the whole pleadings and thereby the election petition is devoid of any cause of action. It was further contended that the entire newspapers in which the paid news was said to be published are not filed. There are no direct and detailed pleadings of important facts in respect of the alleged corrupt practices of the third respondent. It is further contended that there is no material disclosing as to how the voters were influenced on account of the alleged paid news items published in the Telugu daily newspapers and the effect of news on the voters. 17. On the above grounds, the respondents 1 to 3 sought to reject the election petition filed by the petitioner. 18. The petitioner in the main election petition filed two amendment petitions i.e. E.A.No. 14 of 2010 and E.A.No.212 of 2010. 19. In T.PHUNZATHANG v HANGKHANLIAN AND OTHERS[1] it was held as follows: “If the copies supplied to the respondent of affidavit filed in support or corrupt practice do not contain due verification and attestation by oath Commissioner/prescribed authority, they do not cease to be ‘true copy’ and when there is no such defect in original affidavit filed in Court, the petition is not liable to be dismissed under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act. In view of the above said decision, the defect in the verification does not go to the roots of the case and it is a curable defect and in enabling the petitioner to cure the said defect, it does not cause any prejudice to the respondents 1 to 3. Therefore, E.A.No.212 of 2010 filed by the election petitioner to amend the verification portion can be allowed and accordingly, the same is allowed. 20. However, insofar as E.A.No.14 of 2010 filed by the election petitioner seeking amendment by adding certain sentences and paras in para (g) at page 8 as prayed for, it may be stated that in the election petition, initially the petitioner did not furnish any material facts relating to the corrupt practices that is the particulars concerning the surrogated/paid news were not furnished. Nowhere in the election petition, there is mention about the contents of the news items published by various newspapers, now by way of amendment, the petitioner seeks to prove the alleged corrupt practice afresh. Though, in respect of verification of the affidavit filed in support of the election petition, this Court may be liberal in allowing the amendment, but this Court is not supposed to allow the corrupt practices pleaded by way of amendment which was originally omitted in the election petition. In the opinion of this Court, it is unjust and prejudicial to respondents 1 to 3 and such amendment shall not be allowed to be pleaded by the petitioner. Therefore, E.A.No.14 of 2010 is dismissed. 21. Section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act dealing with contents of election petition reads as follows: “An election petition – (a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies; (b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner allege, including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place on the commission of each such practice; and (c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of f1908) for the verification of pleadings”. 22. In F.A.SAPA ANDOTHERS v SINGORA ANDOTHERS[2] the Supreme Court held as follows: “On a plain reading of this provision it is manifest that it is incumbent on the petitioner to set-forth ‘full particulars of any corrupt practice’ he alleges against the returned candidate. This should be accompanied by ‘as full a statement as is possible’ of the names of those who have indulged in such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission thereof… This provision reflects the anxiety of the legislature to ensure that allegations of corrupt practice are not lightly made; not only that but it ensures that the responsibility thereof is fixed on the petitioner himself by asking him to swear an affidavit in support thereof… The Supreme ultimately emphasized that it is essential that the particulars of the charge or allegation are clearly and precisely stated in the election petition to afford a fair opportunity to the person against whom it is leveled to effectively counter the same.” 23. In the instant case, as I have already stated, this Court by way of amendment is not supposed to allow, to plead corrupt practice afresh without furnishing any particulars about such corrupt practices in the election originally filed. The contents of the entire election petition filed by the petitioner does not furnish any particulars of corrupt practices allegedly resorted to by the respondents 1 to 3 in connivance with certain Telugu news daily organizations. In the absence of any such details relating to corrupt practices, it has to be held that the petitioner failed to make out a cause of action for filing the election petition. The election petition therefore, is liable for rejection for want of cause of action. Further, since the returned candidate i.e. the first respondent resigned and was re-elected in the subsequent election in the same constituency, no cause survives for consideration in the election petition and essentially, it became infructuous. 24. For the foregoing reasons, E.A.No.212 of 2010 is allowed. E.A.No.14 of 2010 is dismissed. E.A.No.1062 of 2009 and E.A.No.66 of 2011 are allowed. Eventually, the election petition is dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ Date: 30.09.2011 R. KANTHA RAO, J Kvrm HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO E.A.NO.66 OF 2011, E.A.NO.1062 OF 2009, E.A.NO.14 of 2010, E.A.NO.212 OF 2010 AND E.P.NO.16 OF 2006 DATE: 30.09.2011 [1] AIR 2001 SC 3924 [2] (1991) 3 SCC 375