Har Pratap Singh v. Shyam Surat Upadhyaya — 1986 DIGILAW 666 (ALL)

ORDER V.P. Mathur, J. - This petition under O. VI, R. 16 and O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. has been moved by respondent 1, Shyam Surat Upadhyaya of Election Petition No. 42 of 1985. He is the main respondent in this case and it is he whose election is sought to be declared void. The election petitioner has come to seek three reliefs, namely (i) that the election of respondent 1, Shyam Surat Upadhyaya from 272 Pratappur, U.P. State Legislative Assembly constituency be declared void, (ii) that the petitioner be declared duly elected, and (iii) that a total repoll of the entire constituency or in the alternative of Polling Stations Nos. 70, 73. 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81 and 82 may be directed and fresh results be declared. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the matter are that polling for the General Elections to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly was held on 5-3-1985 and after the counting of the votes which took place on 6-3-1985 respondent 1 Shyam Surat Upadhyaya was declared elected from 272, Pratappur Assembly Constituency. In all there were 14 candidates. Har Pratap Singh, who is election petitioner in this petition represented the Lok Dal and had secured 30283 votes while Shyam Surat Upadhyaya, who belonged to Indian National Congress, secured 34263 votes. Other candidates did not secure any appreciable number of votes. 3. In all there were 14 candidates. Har Pratap Singh, who is election petitioner in this petition represented the Lok Dal and had secured 30283 votes while Shyam Surat Upadhyaya, who belonged to Indian National Congress, secured 34263 votes. Other candidates did not secure any appreciable number of votes. 3. The grounds taken in the Election Petition are (1) that respondent 1, Shyam Surat Upadhyaya, his Election Agents, workers and supporters with his consent directly or indirectly interfered with and attempted to interfere with the free exercise of the electoral right of the Voters by not permitting them to cast their votes and thus committed corrupt practice of undue influence vide S. 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (2) Shyam Surat Upadhyaya his election agent/agents, workers and supporters with his consent threatened the polling agents of the petitioner and large number of voters, who had gone to cast their votes with dire consequences if they acted as polling agents of the petitioner and if the voters tried to exercise their right to vote and thereby again committed corrupt practice of undue influence under S. 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act'), (3) the respondent 1 Shyam Surat Upadhyaya, his election agent/agents, workers and supporters with his consent forcibly captured a number of polling stations, terrorised and intimidated voters and themselves marked thousands of ballot papers in favour of respondent 1 and again committed corrupt practice under S. 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act and lastly (4) the election of returned candidate, namely Shyam Surat Upadhyaya has been materially affected under S. 100(i)(d)(ii) and (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, by the corrupt practice of booth capturing resorted to by him, his election agents and workers in his interest and also by the non-compliance by the Returning Officer of the mandatory directions issued by the Election Commission of India on 6th November, 1984 and 2nd March, 1985. In support of these grounds, material facts and essential particulars have allegedly been given. 4. In support of these grounds, material facts and essential particulars have allegedly been given. 4. In the petition under O. VI, R. 16 and O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. the contention of respondent No. 1 is that the election petition suffers from incurable defects as it does not contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies and it does not set forth full particulars of the corrupt practices that the petitioner has alleged and full statements as required by sub-sec. (d) of S. 83 have not been furnished. In this light of the allegations we will have to examine the various paragraphs of the petition to come to a conclusion as to how far they suffer from these defects. 5. However, before adverting to this point, it will be necessary to make some legal positions clear. O. VI, R. 16, C.P.C. lays down that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any matter in any pleading (a) which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or (b) which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit, or (c) which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court. 6. The word `frivolous' has been defined in the Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1971, Edn. Vol. 1, at page 913, as "something of little weight or importance," as "something having no basis in law or facts". Similarly the word `embarrassing' has been defined at page 729 of the same Dictionary as `placing in doubt, perplexity or difficulty'. It is now well settled that nothing can be more embarrassing to a defendant than a number of statements which may be irrelevant and about which the defendant, therefore, does not know as to what to do. 7. Order VI, R. 11, C.P.C. refers to rejection of plaint which can be ordered where the plaint does not disclose a cause of action : 8. We will have, therefore, to come to a conclusion from an analysis of the various paragraphs of the Election Petition whether it suffers from the defect of not disclosing any cause of action and is liable to be dismissed as such, or whether it is defective in view of O. VI, R. 16, C.P.C. and requires amendments and deletions. 9. We will have, therefore, to come to a conclusion from an analysis of the various paragraphs of the Election Petition whether it suffers from the defect of not disclosing any cause of action and is liable to be dismissed as such, or whether it is defective in view of O. VI, R. 16, C.P.C. and requires amendments and deletions. 9. The law is that in order that a pleading may be sufficient to make out case of undue influence, it must set out full particulars of the same under the provisions of S. 83 of the Act which may be compared to O. VI, R. 4, C.P.C. The said provision of the Act read with S. 123(2) makes it obligatory on the part of the party setting up a case of corrupt practice by exercise of undue influence to give full particulars thereof. 10. The material facts have been held to mean, the facts which are necessary for formulating a complete cause of action. If even a single material statement is omitted from the pleadings, the statement of the claim becomes bad. `Cause of action' has been defined in a number of rulings as every fact which if it is traversed, it will be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. There is a marked difference between the words `material fact' and what can be described as `particulars'. 11. In the case of Udhay Singh v. Madhav Rao Scindia, AIR 1976 SC 744 , it has been held that all the primary facts which must be proved at the trial by a party to establish the existence of a cause of action or his defence are material facts and in the context of a charge of corrupt practice material facts will mean all the basic facts constituting the ingredients of the particular corrupt practice alleged, which the petitioner is bound to substantiate before he can succeed on that charge. Whether in an election petition a particular fact is material or not and as such required to be pleaded is a question which depends upon the nature of the charge levelled, the ground relied upon and the special circumstances of the case. Whether in an election petition a particular fact is material or not and as such required to be pleaded is a question which depends upon the nature of the charge levelled, the ground relied upon and the special circumstances of the case. In short all those facts which are essential to clothe the petitioner with a complete cause of action are material facts which must be pleaded and the failure to plead even a single material fact would amount to disobedience of the mandate of S. 81(1)(a) of the Act. As against this, `particulars', on the other hand, are the details of the case set up by the party. "Particulars" within the contemplation of Cl. (b) of S. 83(1) would include all the details which are necessary to amplify, refine and embellish the material facts already pleaded in the petition in compliance with Cl. (a). Particulars serve the purpose of finishing touches to the basic contour of a picture already drawn to make it full more detailed and more informative. 12. The case of Samant N. Balakrishna v. George Fernandez, AIR 1969 SC 1201 is the leading case now. While dealing with S. 100(1)(b) and S. 100(1)(d) and S. 123 of the Act it was held that where a corrupt practice is charged against an agent other than election agent, then the petitioner must prove consent on the part of the returned candidate to the commission of the corrupt practice. If this consent is not proved the case will fall under S. 100(1)(d) and not S. 100(1)(b) and in such a case proof that the corrupt practice has materially affected the poll must be adduced. It was also held that S. 83 of the Representation of the People Act is mandatory. The distinction between material facts and particulars was drawn out and it was laid down that if the material facts of the corrupt practice are stated, more and better particulars of the charge may be given later but where the material facts themselves are missing, it will be impossible to think that the charge has been made out and hence no question of amplification subsequently arises. The power of amendment is given in respect of the particulars but there is a prohibition against an amendment which will have an effect of introducing particulars of a corrupt practice which is not previously alleged in the petition. 13. The power of amendment is given in respect of the particulars but there is a prohibition against an amendment which will have an effect of introducing particulars of a corrupt practice which is not previously alleged in the petition. 13. In this respect S. 86(5) of the Representation of the People Act may be noted down as follows : "86. Trial of election petitions :- x x x x (5) The High Court may, upon such terms as to costs and otherwise as it may deem fit, allow the particulars of any corrupt practice alleged in the petition to be amended or amplified in such manner as may in its opinion be necessary for ensuring a fair and effective trial of the petition, but shall not allow any amendment of the petition which will have the effect of introducing particular of a corrupt practice not previously alleged in the petition." 14. Thus on the point as to whether for want of material facts it will be possible to allow amendment in the petition, the law is well settled. In the case of Balwan Singh v. Lakshmi Narain, AIR 1960 SC 770 decided by a Constitution Bench, consisting of five Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court, it has been held that if material facts are missing and there is absence of cause of action, there can be no amendment permitted after the period of limitation of the filing of the election petition. But if particulars are missing and in cases in which the facts of corrupt practice have been set forth in an election petition and are sufficient, the petition will not be dismissed in limine for that reason. Where an objection is raised by the respondent about the defect of the petition for want of full particulars of an alleged corrupt practice, the Court is bound to decide the objection and if it is found to be well founded, it has to give an opportunity to the petitioner to amend or amplify the particulars of corrupt practice alleged and, in the event of non-compliance with that order the Court may strike out charge which remains vague. Insistence upon full particulars of corrupt practice is undoubtedly of paramount importance in the trial of an election petition. 15. Insistence upon full particulars of corrupt practice is undoubtedly of paramount importance in the trial of an election petition. 15. One more point that requires elucidation is that where it is contended in an election petition that respondent, his election agent, or her agents with his consent captured the booths and prevented the voters from casting their votes, what would be the effect? The learned counsel for respondent 1 contends that it will be an election offence only and cannot be treated to be a corrupt practice. In this petition before me there are general allegations as well as specific allegations, that respondent 1 some of his armed companions, his election agent and his other agents, all with his consent entered the various polling stations and at the point of their weapons they overawed, threatened and manhandled the Presiding Officers and Polling Agents of other candidates including the petitioner, and they marked the ballot papers in favour of respondent 1 and did not allow the voters to cast their votes. It cannot be contended that at least in this country forcible polling of bogus votes as mentioned above, is not a corrupt practice and merely an electoral offence. In my opinion, it will constitute not only indirect but direct interference with the electoral right of the concerned electors who were thus denied the right to vote. It will be immaterial whether these persons, namely the voters, whose right was thus infringed, had decided to cast their votes, in that election or not to do so, because either way if it is proved that votes in their names had been cast bogusly, it will still amount to interference with their right to vote or not to vote and it will be not only an electoral offence but also a clearcut example of direct and indirect interference with the electoral right of the voters. A similar question arose for determination in the case of Ram Singh v. Ram Singh, AIR 1986 SC 3 . The Bench consisted of three Judges (Two of them formulated the majority view and one gave a dissenting judgment). The point in question, namely whether interference of the type, which I have mentioned above, should be treated as a mere electoral offence or as a corrupt practice arose. The Bench consisted of three Judges (Two of them formulated the majority view and one gave a dissenting judgment). The point in question, namely whether interference of the type, which I have mentioned above, should be treated as a mere electoral offence or as a corrupt practice arose. The majority decision did not consider it necessary to record its views on this point as it decided the matter on other points. The minority judgment, however, took into consideration this point and recorded its finding. In such cases in which the majority of the Judges chose not to give any opinion on a particular point but minority view is there, in my opinion, minority view will be binding on all the Courts including the High Court, if it has not been set at naught by a larger Bench. 16. In the light of all this law, let us now come to the facts of the matter parawise. Paragraph 3(a), (b), (c) and (d). Paragraph 1, 2, 4. 17. These paragraphs of the petition describe the grounds on which the petition is based and on account of which the declaration against respondent 1 is sought, while paras 1, 2 and 4 are only introductory. Paragraph 5. 18. The first defect pointed out in this paragraph is that it starts with the assertion that respondent 1 was a Minister in the Uttar Pradesh Government. So far as this part of the para is concerned, there can be no objection to the continuance of this fact in the petition, but thereafter whatever has been written is simply by way of insinuation and there is no basis for the same. It is contended that he exercised influence over the District Administration and the Police Authorities of the Constituency. This part of the paragraph requires to be deleted. Subsequently it is said that the petitioner had defeated respondent 1 from the same Constituency in the elections held to the Uttar Pradesh State Legislative Assembly in the years 1974 and 1977. This is a statement of fact and its relevance is that the petitioner wants to show that he was not a weak candidate but had sufficient influence in the Constituency and had been elected twice from the same Constituency. In this paragraph the words beginning from and exercised .................. and ending with the word "constituency" shall be deleted. Paragraph No. 6 19. In this paragraph the words beginning from and exercised .................. and ending with the word "constituency" shall be deleted. Paragraph No. 6 19. This paragraph of the petition can be retained because it only mentions what information the petitioner received from his agents, workers, large number of voters and supporters. This by itself does not give detailed facts and particulars of any corrupt practice but provides a background for the same. Paragraph No. 7: 20. In this paragraph there is nothing objectionable. The last part of this para mentions about the letter dated 18-2-1985, posted on 19-2-1986. If respondent 1 wants to see this letter before the filing of his written statement, he may ask the Court for a copy of that letter to be placed on the record. Paragraphs Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13: 21. No defect is found in these paragraphs of the petition. Paragraph No. 14: 22. Para 14 of the petition also does not contain any defect. It is only descriptive in the sense that it describes as to where the various polling stations were situate. Paragraph No. 15: 23. Para 15 consists of two parts. In the first part the allegation is that Election Agent of respondent 1 with the help of armed men warned the voters not to enter into the Polling Station and to return back to their homes as they will not permit them to cast their votes. Upon this the voters ran away and did not cast their votes. There is no detail of the voters who were thus made to run away and failed to cast their votes. These details should be furnished. The charge is complete otherwise. Material facts have been given. The petitioner should give the names of the voters who were present at the Polling Station and had run away from there at the instance of the Election Agent of respondent 1 and the names of the armed men who were with him. 24. The second part of this paragraph mentions the names of those voters who were prevented from exercising their right to vote by the Election Agent and the Polling Agent of respondent No. 1 with his consent. The details of the voters have been given. It is not necessary to give their electoral number according to the Voters' List. 24. The second part of this paragraph mentions the names of those voters who were prevented from exercising their right to vote by the Election Agent and the Polling Agent of respondent No. 1 with his consent. The details of the voters have been given. It is not necessary to give their electoral number according to the Voters' List. That can always be found by a perusal of the Voters' List in this respect. 25. I may, at this stage, mention the fact that in this petition consent is pleaded as regards the action which was taken by the Agents of respondent 1. This consent is of two types. In some paras it has been mentioned that whatever action was taken by the Agents of the petitioner, was taken in his presence and since he did not object to that action and in a way encouraged them, there will be a presumption of his direct consent. At other places his tacit consent is based on the circumstances pleaded, where he himself was not present on the spot and his Agents did something illegal. It is not possible at all to give facts about such a consent except bring on record the circumstances on the basis of which consent can be presumed. Thus where the candidate comes to know of the illegal activities of his Agents and does not try to stop them or where after some illegality has been committed by his Agents, before his arrival on the spot and he himself continues that illegality, his consent to the earlier action of his Agents can be presumed. 26. An example is provided in para 18. It is said that at Polling Station Chanethu respondent 1 arrived at about 3.15 P.M. and on his arrival when the voters told him that his Agents etc. had indulged in corrupt practice and were not permitting them to cast their votes, Sri Upadhyaya allegedly scolded them and asked them to leave the polling Station and simultanously he asked his men to stamp more ballot papers in his favour. The use of the word `more' is significant. It shows that Sri Upadhyaya allegedly approved of all that had already been done by his Agents and further directed his Agents etc. to continue to do the same again. The use of the word `more' is significant. It shows that Sri Upadhyaya allegedly approved of all that had already been done by his Agents and further directed his Agents etc. to continue to do the same again. In the background of these facts, it will be for the Court to decide on the basis of the evidence that is adduced, and the circumstances that are proved on record, whether the consent of respondent 1 to his Agents, workers and supporters, as mentioned in various paragraphs of the petition, can be inferred. Paragraph No. 16: 27. No objection has been raised so far as this paragraph of the petition is concerned. Paragraph No. 17: 28. The details of the armed men cannot be given because it is said that they were unknown. The last few lines of this paragraph, however, only make insinuation for which there is no basis. Therefore, the words "and the patronage of the Police force resent at the said Polling Station" shall be deleted. Paragraph No. 18 : 29. So far as this paragraph is concerned, material facts and particulars have all been given. The allegations show that Sri Upadhyaya directed the voters to go away and not to cast votes and simultaneously he asked the armed men to stamp some ballot papers in his favour. He entered the polling station, terrorised the Presiding Officer and got a number of ballot papers stamped in his favour. The paragraph makes out a complete charge. Paragraph No. 19 30. There is a mention of the fact in this paragraph that before Sri Upadhyaya reached the Polling Stations, about 60 or 70 voters came to cast their votes but they were not allowed to cast the votes and it is alleged that the votes were cast in their names by his men, and at his instigation the armed men started manhandling the voters as a result of which they did not cast their votes. Names of the voters are not mentioned. All other particulars are there. These names should now be supplied. Paragraphs Nos. 20, 21 and 22 : 31. These paragraphs of the petition do not require any comments. Paragraph No. 23 : 32. This paragraph consists of many facts. It is contended that up to 9.30 A.M. at Polling Stations Nos. 81 and 82 Puredih a few voters cast their votes. These names should now be supplied. Paragraphs Nos. 20, 21 and 22 : 31. These paragraphs of the petition do not require any comments. Paragraph No. 23 : 32. This paragraph consists of many facts. It is contended that up to 9.30 A.M. at Polling Stations Nos. 81 and 82 Puredih a few voters cast their votes. Mithai Lal was the Polling Agent of the petitioner. Raghav Ram Mishra and Saheb Lal Pandey were the Polling Agents of respondent 1 at Polling Station No. 81 but since there was no Polling Agent of respondent No. 1 at Polling Station No. 82, these two persons were entering the Polling Station No. 82 also. Up to this place the paragraph is only informative. Thereafter it is contended that the Polling Agent (it is in singular and it has not been disclosed as to who out of the two polling Agents) of the respondent No. 1 with his consent intimidated and terrorised the Polling Agents of the petitioner and voters who had come to cast their votes and did not allow the Polling Agent of the petitioner to sit inside the Polling Station and the voters to enter the Polling Booth. It is also contended that a large number of armed men of the Congress Party were present and when the observer of the Election Commission reached at about 10.30 A.M. he found Congress (I) Agents and workers actually firing and thus a large number of voters were prevented by the Polling Agents of respondent 1 from casting their votes. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire part of the paragraph beginning from the words- "The polling agent" and ending with the words "who recorded it" should be deleted. 33. The latter part of this paragraph requires amendment. It is mentioned that Sri Upadhyaya came with armed men. It is nowhere said that these armed men were unknown persons. Their names should be disclosed. Paragraph No. 24: 34. It is a complete paragraph and all material facts have been properly disclosed. Paragraph No. 25: 35. It is again conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the whole of the paragraph is vague. It does not disclose the number of the Polling Stations nor the names of the voters have been given. Paragraph No. 24: 34. It is a complete paragraph and all material facts have been properly disclosed. Paragraph No. 25: 35. It is again conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the whole of the paragraph is vague. It does not disclose the number of the Polling Stations nor the names of the voters have been given. All particulars are missing and the whole of the paragraph is liable to be deleted. Paragraph No. 26: 36. Here again the number of the Polling Station has not been given. It may either be 81 or 82. The material fact is missing. Therefore, the whole of the paragraph will have also to be deleted. Paragraph No. 27 : 37. There is no objection to the continuance of this paragraph. Paragraph No. 28 38. It appears from this paragraph that the original sites of the Polling Stations Nos. 81 and 82 were subsequently changed by the Election Officer. The contention is that this was because of the influence of respondent 1. No details of this influence have been given. The change of the venue does not amount to a corrupt practice or even an electoral offence. Similarly, about Polling Station No.70, Janghai the allegations do not make out any case to be covered by corrupt practice or which may amount to an election offence. Therefore, the part of the paragraph beginning from the words "in the polling station" and ending with the words "booth capturing by respondent 1" shall be deleted. In the subsequent part of this paragraph it is said that the voters were not allowed to enter the Polling Station and unknown armed men marked the ballot papers in favour of respondent 1. Names of the voters have not been given. They should now be furnished. Paragraphs Nos. 29, 30 and 31 : 39. No objection has been raised in respect of these paragraphs. Paragraphs Nos. 32, 33 and 34: 40. Names of the voters have not been given. They should now be furnished. Paragraphs Nos. 29, 30 and 31 : 39. No objection has been raised in respect of these paragraphs. Paragraphs Nos. 32, 33 and 34: 40. These paragraphs will have to be read together and briefly stated, the facts mentioned are that Raghav Saran, who was an active worker and supporter of respondent 1, with the consent of respondent 1 along with the Polling Agent of respondent 1 had brought a large number of armed men at the Polling Station at about 8.30 A.M. These persons terrorised the voters, as a result of which the voters out of fear did not go to cast their votes. Raghav Saran and the Polling Agent of respondent 1 misbehaved with the Polling Agent of the petitioner and made him to leave the Polling Booth. They terrorised and gave beating to the Presiding Officer and the stamped the ballot papers in favour of respondent 1. In para 32 the names of the armed men have not been given. It is not said that these armed men were unknown persons. Their names should be furnished. 41. The later part of para 32 beginning from the words "on his arrival" and ending with the words "ballot papers themselves" shall be deleted as it is irrelevant. Paragraph No. 35 : 42. It is contended that necessary facts of instigation have not been given but this appears to be incorrect. It is mentioned in the earlier paragraph that on arrival at about 2.00 P.M. at Polling Station 79 Bhelkha Sri Upadhyaya scolded the voters and directed them to run away and also directed Raghab Saran to chase them, upon which the armed men pointed their guns towards them and the voters ran away. These are details of the instigation by Sri Upadhyaya. Therefore, as it is, it does not suffer from any defect. Paragraphs Nos. 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41. 43. No objection has been raised about these paragraphs. Paragraph No. 42 44. In this para names of armed men have again not been given. The allegations simply say that Sri Shambhu Nath Upadhyaya. Election agent of respondent No. 1, came with armed men, threatened the Polling Agents of the petitioner and saw that they were out of the Polling Station. Up to this stage no corrupt practice is alleged. In this para names of armed men have again not been given. The allegations simply say that Sri Shambhu Nath Upadhyaya. Election agent of respondent No. 1, came with armed men, threatened the Polling Agents of the petitioner and saw that they were out of the Polling Station. Up to this stage no corrupt practice is alleged. Subsequently it is contended that these persons threatened and terrorised voters who were present on the spot and warned them of serious consequences of they did not leave the polling station. Names of some of the voters have been given. Therefore, the only thing required will be that petitioner will furnish the names of the armed men mentioned in para 42. Paragraph No. 43 45. The first part of para 43 does not detail out any corrupt practice. It only says that the Presiding Officer was threatened if he resisted booth capturing. In the later part of this paragraph, however, it is mentioned that armed men (about whom mention is made above and their details have now to be furnished), kept on going inside both the Polling Stations and stamping the ballot papers in favour of respondent 1 even after the election agent of respondent 1 had left the polling station at about 10.30 A.M. The consent is not specifically pleaded in this paragraph, but in the ground mentioned in para 3 about all the acts done by the agents of respondent 1 his consent has been mentioned. This paragraph will have, therefore, to be read along with the sub-paragraphs of para 3. Paragraphs Nos. 44, 45, 46 and 47 : 46. These paras do not disclose any defect. Paragraph No. 48 : 47. The allegations are that at 2.00 P.M. the petitioner went to police station Sarai Mamerj to lodge a report but his report was not taken down by the Station Officer. So far this fact is concerned, it is only informative. The allegations, however, that this was so done due to the influence of respondent 1 do not find support from anything on record. These insinuations, therefore, should not be allowed to continue and, therefore, in paragraph No. 48 the words starting from "but due to" and ending with the words "respondent 1" shall be deleted. Paragraphs Nos. 49 and 50 : 48. No defect has been pointed out in these paragraphs. Paragraphs Nos. 51 and 52 : 49. These insinuations, therefore, should not be allowed to continue and, therefore, in paragraph No. 48 the words starting from "but due to" and ending with the words "respondent 1" shall be deleted. Paragraphs Nos. 49 and 50 : 48. No defect has been pointed out in these paragraphs. Paragraphs Nos. 51 and 52 : 49. No material facts and particulars in respect of the ground mentioned in para 3(d) of the Election Petition have actually been given anywhere. It is nowhere said that the agents and supporters of respondent 1 did illegal acts, in his interest as a result of which the election of respondent 1 has materially been affected. No details have been given how there has been any material effect on the result of the election of respondent 1. 50. Paragraphs Nos. 51 and 52 shall, therefore be deleted. Paragraphs Nos. 53 and 54 : 51. There is no objection against these paragraphs. Paragraph No. 55 52. This paragraph consists of two parts. The first part is that election petitioner had lost by 3980 votes. So far as this part is concerned, it can be retained but the subsequent part which says that if 6650 invalid votes are counted in his favour he will secure a majority of votes, is not based upon any facts and circumstances mentioned in the petition. How can these 6650 votes be presumed in his favour, why they should be counted in favour of the petitioner and why it cannot be presumed that if these illegalities would not have been committed, they should have gone in favour of the other candidates, there being as many as 13 candidates contesting, is not clear. Therefore, this later part of the paragraph starting with the word "and" and ending with the word `polled' shall be deleted. Paragraphs Nos. 56, 57, 58, 59 and 60 : 53. No objection is raised about these paras. 54. The prayer Cl. (b) requires deletion there is nothing on the record which gives any cause of action for this relief. The relief is based upon conjectures and surmises. Therefore, relief (b) shall be deleted. 55. In the result, the petition under O. VI, R. 16 and O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. stands disposed of accordingly. 54. The prayer Cl. (b) requires deletion there is nothing on the record which gives any cause of action for this relief. The relief is based upon conjectures and surmises. Therefore, relief (b) shall be deleted. 55. In the result, the petition under O. VI, R. 16 and O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. stands disposed of accordingly. Within 15 days from the date of this order, the petitioner shall seek amendment of his petition in the light of the observations made above, by deleting the paragraphs and passages which have been pointed out in the body of this judgment and by giving additional information also as pointed out the body of this judgment.