Sudarsha Avasthi vs Shiv Pal Singh

2. This civil appeal is directed against the order passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow by which 1 three election petitions were disposed of one by the appellant, Jitendra Nath Pandey and Sharad Tiwari by the common order. The appellant before us, Sudarsha Avasthi filed an election petition being Election Petition No.3 of 2002 for declaration of Shiv Pal Singh's election to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council to be void on various grounds. The appellant was an elector in the Electoral Roll for election to the Legislative Council of Uttar Pradesh from Lucknow Division Graduates' Constituency and his name was mentioned at Serial No.1595 of Part No.190 Aliganj Ward Lucknow. The election was held on 2.5.2002 and the result was declared on 7.5.2002. The respondent - Shiv Pal Singh was declared elected. The election of the elected representative- respondent was challenged on the ground that the result of the election had been materially affected by improper acceptance of nomination paper of respondent. Respondent committed corrupt practice by giving money directly to Ram Pratap Singh and Pradeep Kumar with a view to induce them to contest as candidates in the said election. The respondent also committed corrupt practice by giving money to S.P.Singhal with the object of inducing him to withdraw his nomination. Lastly, the respondent committed corrupt practice of procuring assistance in furtherance of his prospects in the election from the Additional Commission (Administration) , Lucknow Division 2 who was the Assistant Returning Officer in the said election. A detailed affidavit was filed by the appellant disclosing the material facts of the corrupt practice. The Election petition was contested by the returned candidate- the respondent, Shiv Pal Singh. It was pleaded on behalf of the respondent that the election petition did not disclose any cause of action, pleadings are vague, frivolous and vexatious. The concise statement of material facts and the full particulars of the allegations of corrupt practices had not been disclosed. Therefore, the election petition was liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 82 & 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ( hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). An application was also filed under Order VI Rule 16 read with Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( hereinafter to be referred to as the C.P.C.) praying for dismissal of the election petition. The respondent moved an application and prayed that the preliminary issues pertaining to the maintainability of the election petition and the other that the election petition lacked material facts and disclosed no cause of action. Two issues were framed as preliminary issues which read as under:

iii) (1999) 4 SCC 274 T.M.Jacob v. C.Poulose & Ors.

Sukh Darshan Singh & Ors.

v) (2005) 13 SCC 511 Harkirat Singh v. Amrinder Singh

9. No useful purpose will be served by referring to all these cases. The ratio of all these cases is the election petition should contain the allegation of bribery in a concise manner with material particulars. Material particulars disclosed in the present as mentioned above, are not sufficient to be gone into for trial. We are in full agreement with the view taken by learned Single Judge. Therefore, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Civil Appeal No.1108 of 2007

10. The election petition before the High Court was dismissed for want of prosecution as nobody appeared. The learned Judge has recorded in his order that the matter was adjourned number of times and nobody appeared. Therefore, it is not necessary to restore this petition as petitioner was not serious and present term has already expired. This appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 18 .....................................J [A.K.MATHUR] ..............................