In this election petition, the petitioner Jerlie N. Tariang has challenged the election of the respondent Shri G. G. Swell to, the Council of State (Rajya Sabha) from the State of Meghalaya. 2. In the election held on 29. 3. 89, the respondent Shri G. G. Swell was declared to have been elected to the Council of States. The petitioner was set up by Congress (I) and the respondent was sponsored by the Hill State People's Democratic Party. The petitioner Jerlie E. Tariang presented the election petition calling in question the election of the respondent Shri G. G. Swell on the ground that Shri Swell committed corrupt practice as is defined under sub-section (4) of section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, for short 'the Act'. The case of the election petitioner is that the respondent Shri Swell and other persons with his consent published false statement of fact, and which he believed to be false, h relation to the personal character and/or conduct of the petitioner, being statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospect of the election of the petitioner. The respondent Shri G. G. Swell resisted the petition by filling written statement. Four issues were framed and one of the issue was Whether there is any cause of action ? This issue is taken u i as preliminary issue. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some length, the learned counsel for the petitioner has confined himself to the foil >wing allegations made in the petition. (a) "The respondent Shri G. G. Swell falsely and wrongfully published that -the MPCC (I) President Mr. J. E. Tariang (the election petitioner/ h-d committed to bring eight members from the Congress (I) for making ' the toppling game a successful one' in furtherance of his deliberately motivated clandestine endeavour to assassinate the character of his opponent and to exert undue influence on the electorate to ensure with drawal of support by the rolling UMPDF MLAs and the said false and baseless statement of the respondent- Mr. Shell was published in the Shillong Times, dated March 20,199^". (Words within brackets supplied). (b) "That the humble petitioner begs to state that respondent No. 1 Mr. Shell was published in the Shillong Times, dated March 20,199^". (Words within brackets supplied). (b) "That the humble petitioner begs to state that respondent No. 1 Mr. Swell and other parsons, with his consent have falsely tarnished the home, integrity, reputation and respectability of your humble petitioner believing and knowing fully Will that the said fact are false and/or not believing that the said fact of involvement in tae toppling game to be true, being as statement calculated to exert undue influence on the electors and to prejudice the prospects of your humble petitioner's election." (c) The main line of action of respondent nj. 1 was to assassinate the character of your humble petitioner and also to create a confusion and choas amongst the MLAs supporting his candidature regarding his conduct and integrity by falsely implicating his name in defection and Government toppling activities and exerting undue influence on the electors and by adoption of the said corruption practice, the respondent No. 1 succeed". (d) The respondent No. 1 Shri G.G. Swell further issued a press state­ment of March 22nd 1990 which was published ia the Meghalaya Guardians, Shillong dated 23 March, 1990 which inter alia, say : The opposition candidate for the Rajyasabha polls Proff. G. G. Swell on Thursday claimed in a telephonic conversation with the Meghalaya Guardian that he had documentary proof to substantiate the reported commitment made by J. N. Tariang to bring out eight Congress (I) MLAs to topple the Government". (e) "When a Shillong Times reporter approached Mr. Swell on Friday for furnishing the evidence, he said he would not pursue the matter at this stage". The statement was published in Shillong Times dated 25 March, 1990". 4. It may be mentioned here that in the petition, it is stated that at the relevant time the ministry in Meghalaya was led by Shri P. A. Sangma of the United Meghalaya Parliamentary Front (UMPF). Motion of no confidence was to be discussed or debated en 26.3.90. The game of respondent Shri Swell brought fruit as 21 MLAs of the UMPF resigned on the night of 25 March 1990 and they constituted themselves a political party under name and style of UMPF (B) and elected Shri B.B. Lyngdoh as their leader. Motion of no confidence was to be discussed or debated en 26.3.90. The game of respondent Shri Swell brought fruit as 21 MLAs of the UMPF resigned on the night of 25 March 1990 and they constituted themselves a political party under name and style of UMPF (B) and elected Shri B.B. Lyngdoh as their leader. The newly formed political party UMPF (B) merged with the Regional Democratic Front and formed the Meghalaya United Parliamentary Party, and then formed a new ministry on 26.3.90 by toppling the ministry led by Shri Sangma. 5. The question which arises for consideration is whether the allegations quoted above disclose cause of action. 6. Before dealing with the question I consider it necessary to state the settled proposition of law with regard to the "Material facts andparticulars"- (1) Material facts are facts which if establish would give the petitioner the relief asked for. The test required to be answered is whether the Court can give a direct verdict in favour of the election petitioner on the basis of the facts pleaded in the petition in case the returned candidate has not appeared to oppose the election petition. (See Manubhai Nandalal Amarsey vs. Popatlal Manilal Joshi, (1969) 3 SCR 217 : AIR 1969 SC 734 ). The material facts are those facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action. Omrnission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and the statement of claim becomes bad (See Samant vs. George Fernandez, AIR 1969 SC 1201 ) (2) The function of the 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. Merely repeating the words of the statute does not amount to a proper statement of facts and particulars of corrupt practices, i.e. a petition which merely cites section cannot be said to disclose a catse of action (See AIR 1969 SC 1201 , Samant vs. George Fernandez). Merely repeating the words of the statute does not amount to a proper statement of facts and particulars of corrupt practices, i.e. a petition which merely cites section cannot be said to disclose a catse of action (See AIR 1969 SC 1201 , Samant vs. George Fernandez). Particulars are the details of the case set up by the parties. "Particulars" within the contemplation clause (b) of section 83 (1) are all details which are necessary to amplify, refine and embelish the material facts already pleaded in the petition in compliance with the requirement of clause (a) of section 83 (1) (See Udhov Singh vs. Madhav Rao, AIR 1976 SC 744 ). (3) With regard to the consent of the returned candidate or his election agent, there must be averment in the petition facts showing that it was with the consent of the returned candidate or his election agents, is facts showing how it was said that it was with the consent of the returned candidate or his election agent must be pleaded, for example whom the returned candidate gave consent, how and in what manner consent was given and when and in whose presence the consent was given (See Azhar Hussain vs. Ravir Gandhi, AIR 1986 SC 1253). 8. Keeping the above principle in view, let me now examine the case in hand. The allegation contained in clause (a) is that the respondent Shri Swell published false statement of fact and the said false statement was published in the Shillong Times dated 20 March, 90. On perusal of the Shillong Times published on 20 March, 1990 (Annexure 1 to the petition), it indicates that the publication was neither a statement nor was it a publication, made by the respondent Shri Swell. It was a news or what was reported. Under section 123(4) of the Act, there must be publication of any statement of fact and that publication is to made by the candidate or by his agent with his consent. In that view of the matter, the allegation in clause (a) does not disclose a cause of action. Mr. K. B. Paul, the learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, contended that the publication was made with the consent of the respondent Shri Swell. In that view of the matter, the allegation in clause (a) does not disclose a cause of action. Mr. K. B. Paul, the learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, contended that the publication was made with the consent of the respondent Shri Swell. But, it has not bean stated in the petition to whom the respondent gave consent, in what manner and how the consent was given and when and whose presence the consent was given as to make the respondent the case he has to meet. In the absence of such particulars, it cannot be said that materials facts have been pleaded or full particulars have been set forth to present a full picture of the cause of action. Therefore, the contention of Mr. Paul cannot be accepted. That apart, it has not been stated in the petition the date, time and place of making the alleged statement by the respondent Shri Swell, as provided under section 83(l)(b) of the Act. Therefore, the pleading is so vague that it left a wide scope to the petitioner to adduce evidence in respect of the alleged statement of fact at any place and time of any date that he found convenient. In Nihal Singh vs. Rao Birendra Singh, (1970) 3 SCC 239 , it has been observed : "......The pleading was so vague that it left a wide scope to the appellant to adduce evidence in respect of a meeting at any place on any date that he found convenient or tor which he could procure witnesses. The pleading, in fact was so vague and was wanting in essential particulars that no evidences should have been permitted by the High Court on this point......" (emphasis added). The principle laid down by Supreme Court in the above case will be attracted in the present case. For these reasons, the allegations contained in clause (a) is so vague and it does not disclose a cause of action. Apart from the above reasons, under section 123(4), the statements must relate to the personal character and/or conduct of the petitioner, and that the statements must be one being reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospect of the election of the petitioner. The allegations in clause (b) are submissions and reputation of the words of the statute under section 123(4). Apart from the above reasons, under section 123(4), the statements must relate to the personal character and/or conduct of the petitioner, and that the statements must be one being reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospect of the election of the petitioner. The allegations in clause (b) are submissions and reputation of the words of the statute under section 123(4). The allegations in clause (c) is that the publication was to assassinate the character of the petitioner and to create a confusion and choas amongst the ML\s supporting his candidature by falsely implicating the petitioner's name in the defection and toppling activities. In clause (a) it is stated that the publication was to assassinate the character or conduct of the petitioner and exert undue influence on the electorate to ensure withdrawal of support by ruling MUPF MLAs. The alleged statements in clause (a) and (c) relate to the topplings of the ministry led by Shri P. A. Sangma and its effect to the election. In fact the ministry was toppled and a new ministry led by Shri B. B. Lyngdoh was formed in the State of Meghalaya before the election. The use of the word 'Assassinate' denotes "Political reasons". At the relevant time, the petitioner was the President of the Meghalaya Pradesh Congress Committee (I). Eight Members deserted the political party, viz. Congress (I) for the purpose of toppling the ministry and formation of a new ministry and other natural consequences. Consi­dering these circumstances, I am of the view that the alleged statement of fact relates to the political character, not the personal character or conduct, of the petitioner as the President of Congress (I). This being the position, even if false statement is made with regard to the public or political character of a candidate, it would not constitute corrupt practice within section 123(4), although it is likely to prejudice the prospect of the election of that candidate. (See Bansilal vs. Rishi Kumar, AIR 1971 SC 1262 ). Over and above, it is not stated in the petition as to how the statement was one reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospect of the election of the petitioner. Mr. (See Bansilal vs. Rishi Kumar, AIR 1971 SC 1262 ). Over and above, it is not stated in the petition as to how the statement was one reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospect of the election of the petitioner. Mr. K. B. Paul, has contended that the statement was to create a confusion and choas amongst the MLAs made supporting the politician as stated in clause (c), the allegations made thereunder are vague for want of material particular to present a full picture of the cause of action. It appears that the petitioner does not know himself as to how it would prejudice his election. 9. With regard to the allegations in clause (d) and (e), a reading of the 'Meghalaya Guardians' published on 23 March, 199U (Annexure II to the petition) and the 'Shillong Times' published on 25 March, 1990 (Annexure III to the petition) reveals that the alleged publication of statement of fact were not the statement made by the respondent Shri Swell nor were publication by him. They were news or what were reported. Be that as it may, the facts in the alleged statements as they are, they are of subsequent events which may be relevant as evidence to prove the allegations made in clause (a). But every pleading shall certain, and contain only a statement in a concise form of material facts, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved. The allegations in clause (c) and (d) are in the nature of evidence and, therefore, they are not material facts nor they are material particulars. In that view of the matter those allegations cannot be said to form a part of the cause of action. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the allegations are vague and do not constitute or disclose a cause of action and, therefore, the election petition is liable to be rejected under 07, R 1I,CPC. Accordingly, the petition is rejected. No costs. The Registry shall communicate this order to the concerned authority in terms of section 103 of the Act.