ORDER S.K. Seth, J. - 1. A bye-election was held on 26th of March 1989 to fill up vacancy to the seat from 162 Durg constituency of the State assembly Before that, the election programme had been published by the Returning Officer on 28th of February. In accordance with the said programme, the prospective candidates had to file their nomination papers not later than 1st of March. The date of scrutiny had been 2nd of March and date of withdrawal 4th of March. After the election, the counting was to take place on 27th of March and the election result was to be declared on the same day. 2. After scrutiny and withdrawals, 13 persons were declared to be contesting candidates for the bye-election. Respondent Shri Motilal Vora was amongst these 13 contesting candidates. He was a candidate of the Indian National Congress having the symbol of 'hand' (Hath). He had been a Minister in the Central Cabinet. After leaving the same, he bad been the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh since January, 1989. In the polling held on 26th of March 1989, the total votes cast were 1,11,050. Having secured 77, 487 votes, respondent Shri Vora was declared as duly elected to fill the seat in the State assembly from the particular constituency. One Shri Bise Yadav, an independent candidate, was Shri Vora's nearest rival. While losing to Sari Vora, he had secured 21, 154 votes in the bye• election. 3. Petitioner, Shri Alok Diwan, has presented the present election petition in his capacity as a voter of 162 Durg constituency. It is claimed by him that he is a press correspondent of Hindi daily evening paper & 'Pahat' Published from Durg. In the present petition, he has called in question the election of the returned candidate i.e. Shri Motilal Vora on grounds Nos. I to VIII mentioned in para 7 of the petition. It may be pointed out that after mentioning ground No. IV in the said para the next ground has been wrongly mentioned as ground No. VI and as such the total number of grounds raised by the petitioner is not eight but only seven. 4. I to VIII mentioned in para 7 of the petition. It may be pointed out that after mentioning ground No. IV in the said para the next ground has been wrongly mentioned as ground No. VI and as such the total number of grounds raised by the petitioner is not eight but only seven. 4. After the service of notice of petition on him, the returned candidate i.e. respondent Shri Motilal Vora instead of filing his written statement made an application I.A.No.2/89) purporting to be one under order 7 rule 11 C.P.C. raising a preliminary objection that as the allegations made in grounds 1 to VIII mentioned in para 7 of the petition even assuming them to be true and correct do not make out any case of corrupt practice or any ground under section 100 of the Representation of the People Act the petition is liable to be dismissed on the short ground of disclosing no cause of action. In his reply to the said application, it is denied by the petitioner that the grounds urged by him did not disclose any cause of action for challenging the election of the respondent in the bye-election. It is submitted by him that as the returned candidate i.e. the respondent failed to submit his written statement the trial of the petition has to be proceeded with as if there was no written statement on record. After hearing both the parties, it is the above said preliminary objection raised by the respondent in I.A. No. 2/89 which is being disposed of by this order. 5. Now, there is no substance in the objection raised by the petitioner that the preliminary objection of the nature raised by the respondent is not maintainable without he having first filed his written statement in respect of the allegations made in the petition. It is settled law that outside the statutory provisions of the Representation of the People Act there is no right to dispute an election. The said Ace is a complete and self-contained Cede within which any rights claimed in relation to an election or an election dispute must be found. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure arc applicable to the extent as permissible by S.87 of the Act. The said Ace is a complete and self-contained Cede within which any rights claimed in relation to an election or an election dispute must be found. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure arc applicable to the extent as permissible by S.87 of the Act. The scheme of the Act would show that an election can be questioned under the statute as provided by S.80 on the grounds as contained in section 100 of the Act. section 83 lays down a mandatory provision in providing that an election petition shall contain a concised statement of material facts and set forth full particulars of corrupt practice. The pleadings are regulated by S. 83 and it makes it obligatory on the election petitioner to give the requisite facts, details and particulars of each corrupt practice with exactitude. If the election petition fails to make out a ground under S. 100 of the Act it must fail at the threshold. Allegations of corrupt practice are in the nature of criminal charges. It is necessary that there should be no vagueness in the allegations so that the returned candidate may know the case he has to meet. If the allegations are vague and general and the particulars of corrupt practice are Dot stated in the pleadings, the trial of the election petition cannot proceed for want of cause of action. The emphasis of law is to avoid a fishing and roving inquiry. It is, therefore, necessary for the Court to scrutinise the pleadings relating to corrupt practice in a strict manner. It follows that an election petition is liable to be dismissed at the initial stage if it does not contain any cause of action. It further follows that if a preliminary objection is raised before the commencement of the trial, the Court is duty bound to consider the same, it need not postpone the consideration for subsequent stage of the trial. It further follows that if a preliminary objection is raised before the commencement of the trial, the Court is duty bound to consider the same, it need not postpone the consideration for subsequent stage of the trial. [See N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer AIR 1952 SC 64 , Jagan Nath v. Jawant Singh AIR 1954 SC 210 , K. Kamaraja Nadar v. Kunju Thevar AIR 1958 SC 687 , Udhav Singh v. Madhav Rao Scindiar AIR 1976 SC 744 , Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal AIR 1982 SC 983 , Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi AIR 1986 SC 1253, Bhagwati Prasad Dixit ‘Shorewala' v. Rajiv Gandhi (1986) 4 SCC 78 and Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi AIR 1987 SC 1577 . 6. Thus, the preliminary objection raised by the returned candidate i.e. Shri Motilal Vora being maintainable, the next question that arises for determination in respect of the same is whether it deserves to be allowed. For the said purpose, as is clear from the legal position explained above, we have to proceed to scrutinise the pleadings of the petitioner relating to each corrupt practice as contained in ground Nos. I to VIII in para 7 of the petition with a view to find out whether they contain a concise statement of material facts and set forth full particulars pertaining to such corrupt practice. But then before doing so it is necessary to bear in mind the important distinction between 'material facts' and 'particulars' in the context of the requirements of S.83 of the Act. 7. In the above connection, the most illuminating discussion, throwing light on the distinction between 'material facts' and 'particulars' is contained in the decision of the Supreme Court in Samant and Balakrishna, etc. v. George Fernandez and others AIR 1969 SC 1201 As explained by the Supreme Court in the said case section 83 is mandatory and required the election petition to contain first a concise statement of material facts and then requires the fullest possible particulars. The word 'material' shows that the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action must be stated. Omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and the statement of claim becomes bad. The word 'material' shows that the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action must be stated. Omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and the statement of claim becomes bad. The function of particulars is to present as full a picture of the cause of action with such further information in detail as to make the opposite party understand the case he will have to meet. There may be some overlapping between material facts and particulars but the two are quite distinct. The material facts will show the ground of corrupt practice and the complete cause of action and the particulars will give the necessary information to present a full picture of the cause of action. In stating the material facts it will not to merely to quote the words of the section because then the efficacy of the words 'material facts' will be lost. The facts which constitute the corrupt practice must be stated and the facts must be correlated to one of the heads of corrupt practice. An election petition without the material facts relating to a corrupt practice is no election petition at all. For example a petition which merely cites the section cannot be said to disclose a cause of action where the allegation is the making of a false statement. That statement must appear and the particulars must be full as to the person making the statement and the necessary information. 8. In regard to the power of amendment exercisable by the Court, while reiterating the requirement that in a petition the kind of corrupt practice which was perpetrated together with material facts on which a charge can be made out must be stated, the Supreme Court has gone on to explain in S.N. Bala krishna case (supra) that if the material facts of the corrupt practice are stated more of better particulars of the charge may be given later, but where the material facts themselves are missing it is impossible to think that the charge has been made or can be later amplified. The power of amendment is given in respect of particulars but there is a prohibition against an amendment 'which will have the effect of introducing particulars of a corrupt practice not previously alleged in the petition'. 9. The power of amendment is given in respect of particulars but there is a prohibition against an amendment 'which will have the effect of introducing particulars of a corrupt practice not previously alleged in the petition'. 9. Now, let us proceed to scrutinise the pleadings of the petitioner relating to each corrupt practice as contained in ground No.I to VIII in para 7, of the petition with a view to find out whether they contain a concise statement of material facts in respect of each of such corrupt practice. 10. Ground Nos. I and VI in para 7 of the petition relate to the corrupt practice of bribery within the meaning of S.123 (I) of the Act. The substance of pleading in ground No. I is as follows: During the course of his election on 8-3-1989 while his election campaign was on, Sori Vora, as Chief Minister inducted three members of the Legislative Assembly belonging to the Satnami caste into his cabinet. The names of the said three persons were Shri Vijay Guru, Shri Dhanesh Patila and Shri Kishanlal Kurmi. The persons belonging to Satnami caste Were in majority in 162 Durg constituency. The abovesaid act of Shri Vora amounted to 'gifting, offering and promising' gratification to the majority of voters with the object of directly or indirectly inducing them to vote for hi m. As a result of the said act, the considerable majority of Satnami voters of the constituency became pro-congress and voted for the respondent, the substance of pleading of the petitioner in ground No. VI is as follows: On 19-3-1987. in village Thetwarpara of 162 Durg constituency, respondent Shri Motilal Vora held a meeting in Gopal Mandir campus at about 10 a.m. and promised the voters to complete the work of construction of tar road well boring and laying of pipeline in case they voted for him. Shri Victor Walter and Shri Sharma, the Administrator/Commissioner, and Shri Dangwaker. Executive Engineer of Municipal Corporation, Durg, completed the said work at the instance of Shri Vora on 21-3-1983. According to the petitioner, the witnesses to the incident were Shri Bise and Shri Krishan of village Thetwaroara. 11. In addition, though the petitioner is not clear as to which corrupt practice/practices he wanted to set up in Ground Nos. Executive Engineer of Municipal Corporation, Durg, completed the said work at the instance of Shri Vora on 21-3-1983. According to the petitioner, the witnesses to the incident were Shri Bise and Shri Krishan of village Thetwaroara. 11. In addition, though the petitioner is not clear as to which corrupt practice/practices he wanted to set up in Ground Nos. IV and VIII in para 7 of his petition, a part of the pleadings in the said grounds appear to relate section 123 (1) and part to section 123(7). The substance of pleadings in Ground IV is as follows: Shri Vora transferred Shri Victor Walter a government gazetted officer, to Durg and sent one Shri S.N. Sharma to Bhopal during the period of his election campaign. Shri Victor Walter was a close associate of Shri Vora. He was transferred with a view to obtain his assistance in furtherance of Shri Vora's election prospects by ensuring that the promises made by Shri Vora were carried out forthwith and the voters were influenced to cast their votes in his favour. All the public works done in the area of 162 Durg constituency at the instance of Shri Vora were so done with a view to influence the voters unlawfully. It was openly promised by Shri Vora that in Close the people voted for hi m all the facilities such as construction of road, pipe line fittings well-boring, etc would be extended to them at government cost. The substance of pleadings in Ground No. VIII is as follows: During his election campaign, respondent Shri Vora took assistance from the Special Are Development Authority, Durg inasmuch as during the said period at his instance the Chief Executive Officer-cum-Chief Engineer of the said Authority issued a tender notice for construction of Pakki Nalis, tank, ghats, roads, etc. This amounted to illegal gratification. In support of the said allegations, the petitioner relied on the advertisement printed in the local newspaper 'Navbhaskar' dated 24-3-89 published from Raipur. Accordiag to the petitioner, 'the cat was out of the bag' as in the advertisement in question published on 24-3-1989 the tenders were invited latest by 14-3-1989. According to him, the entire thing was done just to assist Shri Vora in his election campaign so that the promises made by him in village Charonda. Polia and Kesanagar Were fulfilled during the election period. According to him this amounts to bribery. 12. According to him, the entire thing was done just to assist Shri Vora in his election campaign so that the promises made by him in village Charonda. Polia and Kesanagar Were fulfilled during the election period. According to him this amounts to bribery. 12. Now, the pleadings in Ground No. I as mentioned above, even assuming them to be true and correct, do not, on the face of it, make out any corrupt practice of 'bribery' within the meaning of section 123(1). In his capacity as a Chief Minister, and as the leader of his party, respondent Shri Motilal Vora had the unquestionable and unqualified right to select his own team of Ministers from amongst the M.L. As. belonging to his party and neither the fact that he selected three M.L. As. belonging to Satnami caste which was in majority in the particular constituency nor the fact that he did so at a time when his election from the said constituency was due could, therefore, by any stretch of imagination be regarded as a 'gift or offer or promise' made by him with a view to directly or indirectly inducing the majority of voters in the said constituency to vote for him. As mentioned above respondent Shri Vora occupied the office of Chief Minister at the time when his election was due. Accordingly, to whatever he could legitimately do in his capacity as the Chief Minister, no improper or illegal motive could attach under section 123(1) in his capacity as a candidate to the election. 13. Coming to the pleadings in Ground Nos. IV and VIII, it is sufficient to say that it is settled law that a candidate, his workers and supporters have every right under the law to canvass for the success of a particular candidate saying that if elected he would work for the development of the constituency. Such a statement of promise is a legitimate one and does not fall within the definition of 'bribery' Or 'undue influence' within the meaning of S.123 (1)(a) or S.123(2) of the Act. Such a promise does not in any way interfere with the free exercise of electrol right of the electors. (See Shiv Kripal Singh v. V.V. Giri AIR 1970 SC 2097 , H.V. Kamath v. Ch. Nitraj Singh AIR 1970 SC 211 and Dhartipakar Madan Gopal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi (supra). 14. Such a promise does not in any way interfere with the free exercise of electrol right of the electors. (See Shiv Kripal Singh v. V.V. Giri AIR 1970 SC 2097 , H.V. Kamath v. Ch. Nitraj Singh AIR 1970 SC 211 and Dhartipakar Madan Gopal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi (supra). 14. It is significant to note that in the present case no such material facts have been stated by the petitioner in any of the ground mentioned above on the basis of which any case of respondent Shri Vora having 'bargained' or 'exercised any undue influence' while making appeal to electors could be said to have been validly set up in his pleadings. In the context of the said grounds, it is also significant to note that any steps taken for speeding up any development activity (tar road, well-boring, laying of pipe-line, Pakki Nalis, tank ghats, etc.) in the constituency and its completion during election could not, in the absence of any thing else, amount to any gift or promise to vote in favour of the candidate. (See; Dhartipukar Madan Gopal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi (supra). 15. Ground No. II in para 7 of the petition relates to the corrupt practice of incurring or authorising of expenditure in contravention of the prescribed limit of Rs. 40,000/- within the meaning of section 123(6) read with section 77 of the Act and rule 90 of the Conduct of Election Rules. 1961. The substance of pleading of the petitioner in the said regard is as follows: (i) In the course of his election, the respondent Shri Motital Vora had erected a 20' high election symbol of 'hand' (Hath) in the Indira Market Chowk at the cost of at least Rs.10,000/-. But, then, he did not include the said expenses in his election expenses. (ii) Again, right from the date of filing his nomination form to the date of election result, the respondent Shri Vora made hundreds of calls from his telephone No. 2555 at Durg to various outside places like Bhopal and Delhi and also within Durg district. The said calls were made by him in his personal capacity as a candidate in the election. The election bills must have been for at least Rs. 25,000/-. Shri Vora suppressed the true account regarding the said telephone bills in his election expenses. The said calls were made by him in his personal capacity as a candidate in the election. The election bills must have been for at least Rs. 25,000/-. Shri Vora suppressed the true account regarding the said telephone bills in his election expenses. Since the election expenses of Shri Vora inclusive of the abovesaid two amounts exceeded the statutory limit of Rs. 40,000/- his conduct in the said regard amounted to a corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123(6) read with section 77 of the Act. 16. Now, the requirements as regards pleadings relating to a corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123(6) read with section 77 of the Act have been the subject matter of a long series of decisions of the Supreme• Court right fro m Rananjaya Singh v. Baijnath Singh AIR 1954 SC 749 , Dhartipakar Madan Gopal Agarwal (supra). However, as section 77 (1) was amended in certain vital respects vide the Representation of the People (Amended) Act, 1974 by addition of two explanations to the same, it is sufficient for our present purpose to note the law on the point explained by the Supreme Court after the said amendment. In the said connection, the position stands summarised by the Supreme Court in the last of the above mentioned cases i.e. Dhartipakar Madan Gopal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi (supra) in the following words; In order to constitute a corrupt practice as contemplated by section 77 and 123(6) it is necessary to plead requisite facts showing authorisation or undertaking of reimbursement by the candidate or his election agent. Only that expenditure which is incurred by the candidate himself or authorised by him is material for the purpose of S. 77. A mere vague and general statement that the candidate and his workers with his consent spent money in election in excess of the permissible ceiling would not be sufficient to constitute corrupt practice. Unless the allegations are specific that the candidate or his election agent authorised the expenses before the money was actually spent and that the candidate or his election agent reimbursed or undertook to reimburse the same the necessary ingredient of corrupt practice would not be complete and it would provide no cause of action to plead corrupt practice. Unless the allegations are specific that the candidate or his election agent authorised the expenses before the money was actually spent and that the candidate or his election agent reimbursed or undertook to reimburse the same the necessary ingredient of corrupt practice would not be complete and it would provide no cause of action to plead corrupt practice. Any voluntary expense incurred by a political party, well-wishers, sympathisers or association of persons does not fall within the mischief of section 123(6) of the Act. 17. Viewed in the light of the abovesaid legal position, it is apparent that the pleadings of the petitioner in Ground No. H as mentioned above are utterly deficient and there were several material links missing from them. It is apparent that respondent Shri Vora had not carried out the actual physical work of either preparing the 20' high election symbol of 'hand' (Hath) or erecting the said symbol in the Indira Market Chowk. Accordingly, the minimum material facts which were required to be pleaded by the petitioner were as to who was the person who carried out the actual physical work, whether the said work was done gratuitously or for consideration if it was done for consideration, whether the said consideration was paid at any time, if the consideration was so paid who was the person who authorised the expenses before the money was actually paid, and if so, whether respondent Shri Vora himself or any of his agent reimbursed or undertook to reimburse the same. The said material facts were completely missing from the pleadings of the petitioner in Ground No. II of para 7. 18. Similarly, with regard to the second corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123 (6) read with section 77 of the Act contained in Ground No II in para 7 quite a few vital links were missing from the pleadings of the petitioner. The allegation that the total telephone bills must have been for at least Rs.25,000/- is based on pure surmise and not on any objective basis. Similarly, the allegation that hundreds of calls were made by respondent Shri Vora from his telephone No. 2555 to various places like Bhopal and Delhi and also within Durg district and the same were made by him in his personal capacity as a candidate are based on pure surmise and not on any objective basis. Similarly, the allegation that hundreds of calls were made by respondent Shri Vora from his telephone No. 2555 to various places like Bhopal and Delhi and also within Durg district and the same were made by him in his personal capacity as a candidate are based on pure surmise and not on any objective basis. The affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of his objection is 'delightfully vague' in respect of the source of information of the petitioner with regard to the abovesaid allegations. It is not explained as to when the respondent was occupying the office of Chief Minister. What was the basis for making the statement that all the said calls were made by him in his personal capacity as a candidate and not otherwise. As stated earlier making a corrupt practice later on "as not permitted. The material facts stating the particular corrupt practice had to be there as a part of the pleadings before the trial of the petition began, they were not to be discovered later on during the trial on the basis of a fishing and roving inquiry permitted by the Court. 19. Grounds Nos. II and VII of the petition relate to the corrupt practice of procuring by respondent Shri Vora assistance from persons in the service of the Government for the furtherance of the prospects of his election within the meaning of section 123 (7) of the Act. The substance of pleadings of the petitioner in the said regard is as follows ; (i) The petitioner witnessed the respondent Shri Motilal Vora's son, Shri Arvind Vora, who was a gazetted officer and was employed as Manager. Jila Udyog Kendra at Durg, assisting his father in filing and submission of his nomination paper. In support of the said allegation, the petitioner also relied upon one photograph published in the local news paper dated 25-2-1989 showing Shri Vora submitting his nomination and his son Arvind Vora standing to his left assisting him. It was submitted that the said assistance given by Shri Arvind Vora was in furtherance of his father's election prospects. (ii) Furtl1er, respondent Shri Vora's son. Shri Arvind Vora, took active part in the election campaign of his father and addressed several meetings in Durg town right from 8-3-1989 till 24-3-1989 including those on 20-3-1989 at polesai Para and Bajrang Chowk. Shri Arvind Vora solicited votes for his father. (ii) Furtl1er, respondent Shri Vora's son. Shri Arvind Vora, took active part in the election campaign of his father and addressed several meetings in Durg town right from 8-3-1989 till 24-3-1989 including those on 20-3-1989 at polesai Para and Bajrang Chowk. Shri Arvind Vora solicited votes for his father. The incident was witnessed by the petitioner and one Shri Vivek Nema. (iii) Respondent Shri Motital Vora obtained the assistance of government servants, gazetted officers, Magistrates, police force, revenue office! s and other class of persons in asmuch as he published his tour programmed through the District Magistrate. In the said regard, the petitioner relied upon the tour programmed of respondent Shri Motilal Vora issued by the District Magistrate, Durg on 14-3-1989 which, according to him, was nothing but a replica of the tour programme issued by the Indian National Congress from Durg and printed on 7-3-1989 in the Hindi daily newspaper Deshbandhu published from Raipur. (iv) Again, apart from respondent Shri Motilal Vora's son Shri Arvind Vora, the body guards, the stenographers and the car drivers of government vehicles in which Shri Vora travelled during his election campaign have also effectively participated in the election campaign by shouting slogans such as 'Motilal Vora Zindabad'. Rajiv Gandhi Zindabad', 'Hath Per Nishan Lagao Voraji Ko Vijayee Banao', etc. (v) The petitioner saw respondent Shri Motilal Vora obtaining and procuring use of government vehicles in furtherance of his election campaign. All the government vehicles were busy in his election campaign. The petitioner also saw respondent Shri Vora obtaining and procuring the assistance of government servants, gazetted officers such as Shri Dhand, Collector, Durg; Shri Kindo, Addl. District Magistrate, Durg; Shri Atram, Addl Collector Durg; and Dr. K.L. Narayana, Veterinary Surgeon, amongst others and all the said persons actively canvassing in the election campaign of Shri Vora. All the government servants were also running here and there in the election campaign of Shri Vora. Shri Vora was a silent spectator to all these illegal activities. 20. It may be mentioned that as already stated earliar, apart from the abovesaid grounds, paras of Ground Nos. IV and VIII also appeared to relate to the corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123 (7) of the Act. The said grounds i.e. Nos. IV and VIII have already been described earlier Accordingly, they need not be described all over again. 21. IV and VIII also appeared to relate to the corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123 (7) of the Act. The said grounds i.e. Nos. IV and VIII have already been described earlier Accordingly, they need not be described all over again. 21. But, then, on the face of it all the above said pleadings of the petitioner relating to the various instances of the Corrupt practices within the meaning of section 123 (7) said to have been committed by respondent Shri Vora fall very much short of the requirements laid down by law. It is settled law that in order to constitute a corrupt practice under section 123 (7) it is essential to clothe the petition with a cause of action which would call for an answer from the returned candidate and it. should therefore, plead mode of assistance, measure of assistance and all facts psrtaining to the assistance. The pleading should further indicate the kind or form of assistance obtained and in what manner the assistance was obtained or procured or attempted to be produced by the candidate for promoting the prospect for his election. The election petitioner must state with exactness the time of assistance, the manner of assistance and the persons from whom assistance was obtained or procured by the candidate. See Dhartipakar Madan Gopal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi (supra). 22. It is not understandable as to how even if it be assumed to the true and correct that respondent Shri Vora's son, Arvind Vora, was a government servant and he was present at the time his father filed up his nomination paper and handed over the same to the Returning Officer, the said facts could amount to respondent Shri Vora obtaining or procuring assistance of his son for the furtherance of his election prospects. It was not indicated as to in what other manner respondent Shri Vora's son 'actively campaigned' for him. Thus, the allegations did not disclose any corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123 (7) of the Act. 23. Again, respondent Shri Vora was the Chief Minister of the State. There was nothing contained in his tour programme issued by the district authorities concerned to show that the said act had not been done by the said authorities in the routine discharge of their official duties. The said allegation did not disclose any corrupt practice. 23. Again, respondent Shri Vora was the Chief Minister of the State. There was nothing contained in his tour programme issued by the district authorities concerned to show that the said act had not been done by the said authorities in the routine discharge of their official duties. The said allegation did not disclose any corrupt practice. It is significant to note that the copies of the said programme had been sent to various public authorities and organisations in the district including all the political parties. 25. Similarly, the allegations with regard to Victor Walter having been brought to Durg with a view to assist respondent Shri Vora in furtherance of his election prospects lacked in material facts. It was not stated as to when his transfer order was issued and as to who issued the said order. It was also not stated as to what was the post held by Shri Victor Walter at Durg and as to in what manner he was in a position to render assistance to Shri Vora for furthering his election prospects. This was apart from the position in law that under the proviso to sub-section (7) :of section 123 no act of any government servant which was in discharge or purported discharge of his official duty was to be deemed to be assistance for the furtherance of the prospects of the candidate's election. 26. The allegation with regard to government vehicles having been used by Shri Vora for furthering his election prospects were insufficient and vague. The number and other particulars regarding the said vehicles were not given. The manner of me of the said vehicles was also not indicated. The same was the position with regard to the allegations relating to certain government officers having allegedly raised Zindabad slogans. As far as the speeding up of developmental activities is concerned, as already mentioned above, the said fact itself did not amount to any corrupt practice. 27. For the reasons stated above, in the opinion of this Court, the preliminary objection raised by the returned candidate i.e. respondent Shri Motilal Vora deserves to be allowed. It is apparent that as the deficiency in the pleadings relates to ‘material facts and not to 'further particu1ars' the question of permitting the petitioner to amend the petition with It View to remove the said deficiency does not arise. Consequently, I.A. No.2/89 is allowed. It is apparent that as the deficiency in the pleadings relates to ‘material facts and not to 'further particu1ars' the question of permitting the petitioner to amend the petition with It View to remove the said deficiency does not arise. Consequently, I.A. No.2/89 is allowed. The election petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed on the short ground of disclosing no cause of action i.e. on the ground that the allegations contained in it even assuming them to be true and correct do not make out any case of corrupt practice or any ground under section 100 of the Representation of the People Act. 28. The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as costs to the respondent.