Laxmi Kant Bajpai vs Hazi Yaqoob & Ors

2) We may now briefly state the material facts : The Delimitation Commission of India under Section 10(1) of the Delimitation Act, 1972, had issued an order in respect of the delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly constituencies of the State of Uttar Pradesh and published the same by issuing a notification dated 8th December, 1973. Table B in the notification provides the territorial constituencies into which the State of Uttar Pradesh was divided for the purpose of election to the Legislative Assembly and the extent of each such constituency. Table B also shows the extent of 397 Meerut assembly constituency (now 381 Meerut constituency) to be the same as Meerut Municipality (excluding wards 1 to 3, 14 and 15). This order was also a part of the Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Order, 1976, issued by the Election Commission of India.

3) On 17.3.2007, notification for electing a member to the U.P Legislative Assembly from 381 Meerut Assembly constituency was issued. The polling for the constituency was held on 13.4.2007 and the results were declared on 11.5.2007. Respondent no.1 , Hazi Yakoob was declared elected by a margin of 1089 votes.

4) Election Petition before the High Court.

(iv) The communication dated 24.3.2007 by the Under Secretary of the Election Commission of India to the Chief Electoral Officer, Uttar Pradesh, was that the geographical boundaries delimited during the previous 3 delimitation cannot undergo any change, unless the new delimitation order is implemented. It is further stated that, on 26.3.2007 the Officer on Special Duty, Chief Electoral Officer, U.P forwarded the aforesaid letter to the District Election Officer, Meerut, informing him that there cannot be any change in the territorial boundaries of the Legislative Assembly constituency until the implementation of the new delimitation order and this amounts to a direction on the part of the Election Commission of India, and despite such direction the names of the voters from the 21 localities continued to be included in the electoral roll of 381 Meerut Assembly constituency and were permitted to vote in the elections. Therefore, the election of returned candidate should be declared as void on the ground that the result of the election insofar as it concerns the returned candidate has been materially affected by improper reception of votes and by non-compliance of the provisions of the Constitution and the Rules made under the 1951 Act.

40)The facts in Shankar Babaji Sawant v. Sakharam Vithoba Salunkhe [(1965) 2 SCR 403] were that the Presiding Officer for the polling station at Village Turveh Khurd, improperly prevented 19 voters from inserting their ballot papers into the ballot box. On the polling day, those 19 voters wanted to vote in favour of the petititioner. The contention raised was that an improper refusal of votes contemplated by section 100(1)(d)(iii) must mean an improper refusal of valid votes. However the court came to 32 the conclusion that the said votes were not valid votes as they were never inserted into the ballot box. The facts and the circumstances of the case are clearly distinguishable from the present case. The present case involves acceptance of alleged improper votes from people of the 21 localities in question, which has according to the appellant materially affected the result of the election. Therefore this case does not assist the appellant in any manner.

33) In the case of V.S Achutanandan v. P.J Francis [(1999) 2 SCR 99], it was held that failure to plead material facts is fatal to the election petition and no amendment of the pleadings is permissible to introduce such material facts after the time limit prescribed for filing the election petition.

35)Therefore, it is a settled legal position that an election petition must clearly and unambiguously set out all the material facts which the appellant is to rely upon during the trial, and it must reveal a clear and complete picture of the circumstances and should disclose a definite cause of action. In the absence of the above, an election petition can be summarily dismissed. To see whether material facts have been duly disclosed or whether a cause of action arises, we need to look at the averment and pleadings taken up by the party.

39)Before parting with the case, we will now refer to the decision on which reliance is placed by learned counsel for appellant.

48)For the reasons mentioned above, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed and since no representation was there for the respondent, we refrain from imposing costs.