This is a petition under section 80 and 80-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (in short the 'Act'). 2. By notification issued under section 15 of the Act and published in the official Gazette of the State of Arunachal Pradesh on 27th January, 1990 the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh called upon all the Assembly Constituencies of the State to elect members for the purpose of constituting a new Legislative Assembly for the State. Thereafter, by another notification issued by the Secretary to the Election Commission of India notified the programme for the election. 3. The present petitioner and respondent No. I were the only candidates from No.9 Chayangtajo Legislative Assembly Constituency. The petitioner war sponsored by the political party Janata Dal and the respondent No. l by Congress (I). Polling trek place on 27 2.90 and the counting took place on 3.3.90 The petitioner secured 334 votes and the respondent 3364 votes and accordingly, the Returning Officer of the said constituency declared respondent No. l as elected from the 9 Chavanjitajo L.A. Constituency, as he obtained 19 votes more than the petitioner. Hence, the present petition. 4. In the petition, the election has been challenged on the ground that election of respondent No. l has materially been affected due to corrupt practice resorted to by him within the meaning of section 123 (1) of the Act. In this connection, the petitioner has alleged that in two meetings held on 8th and 9th February, 1990, the respondent No 1 induced the voters by paying Rs.25,000/- in public meetings. It has further been alleged that the respondent No. l obtained assistance of Gaonbura of the village, as mentioned in paragraph 10 of the petition a d also a Junior Engineer of PWD. It has further been averred that the Presiding Officer of Polling Station No.9/32 with the consent of the respondent No. 1 persuaded the electors to vote for the respondent and dissuaded some electors from exercising their right to vote and also threatened to take action against them. According to the petitioner the Presiding Officer did not allow the relief, polling agents of the petitioner to enter the polling station. According to the petitioner the Presiding Officer did not allow the relief, polling agents of the petitioner to enter the polling station. According to the petitioner, in respect of 19 voters, the said Presiding Officer did not allow them to mark the ballot papers instead he forcibly took them away and put another marking on them and the said 1 19 votes were invalidated. Thus, according to the petitioner, the election of the respondent No.1 has materially been affected due to corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123 (7) o" the Act. 5. It has been alleged that the petitioner came to know about the above illegalities committed in the said Polling Station No.9/32 after the counting was over and he accordingly filed the First Information Report before the Officer-in -charge of the Police Station. According to the petitioner there was cent percent polling in the said polling station. 6. The petitioner has further challenged the election on the ground that the respondent No.l spent lavishly exceeding the prescribed limit of expendi­ture of Rs. 10,000/- for each constituency in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Accordingly, the petitioner has prayed for declaration that the election of respondent No.l is void and that the petitioner has been duly elected from the said constituency. It has further been prayed for recounting of the votes polled in the said Polling Station No. 9/32 of the No.9 Chayangtajo L.A. Constituency and in the alternative for re-poll in the said polling station. 7. Before filing written statement, the respondent No.l has filed two applications. One application is under Rule 16, Order VI read with Rule ! 1 of the Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for striking out matter in the election petition and also for dismissal of the petition for absence of cause of action. It has been prayed that the allegations and statements made in paragraphs 6t 7, 8, 9 and 21 and the grounds of the election petition may be struck down and also dismissal of the election petition for not disclosing any triable issue as contemplated under the Act. 8. In the other petition, the respondent No.l has urged that the election petition is not maintainable and not in form and has prayed for dismissal of the petition on the grounds set forth in the petition. 9. I have heard Mr A.M. Mazumdar and Dr. 8. In the other petition, the respondent No.l has urged that the election petition is not maintainable and not in form and has prayed for dismissal of the petition on the grounds set forth in the petition. 9. I have heard Mr A.M. Mazumdar and Dr. M.K. Sharma for the respondent No.l and Mr.B.K. Das for the petitioner in respect of the above two petitions. I propose to dispose both the petitions by this common judgment and order. 10. First, I propose to deal with the petition praying for striking out the paragraphs of the election petition. [Paragraphs 11 and 12 are not printed] 13. Regarding the petition for striking out the paragraphs the main contention of Dr. Sharma is that there are vital omissions in stating material facts and particulars thereby resulting many vagueness in the election petition. According to Dr. Sharma for the allegations of the bribery, obtai­ning assistance of Government official there are omissions regarding manner, mode and form of such bribery and obtaining assistance. Dr. Sharma has further urged that irrelevant, unnecessary and vexatious statements have been made in the election petitioning view of the above sub missions, Dr. Sharma has urged that unless these paragraphs are struck out, the respondent will not be in a position to file written statement and thereby causing prejudice to him. 14. In reply, Mr.B.K. Das has urged that there is neither vital omission nor vagueness in the present petition and that assuming, but not admitting, there are such vital omissions and vagueness and this Court can at this stage allow the election petitioner to amend the petition or call for more particulars. 15. Now let me take up the petition for striking out the paragraphs of the election petition as prayed for by the respondent, i.e, the returned candidate. [Paragraphs 16 and 17 are not printed] 18. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that this Court would not be justified for allowing the prayer for striking out the paragraphs under Order VI Rule 16 and if necessary the Court can direct for furnishing further and better particulars by invoking Rule 5 of the said Order VI of CPC. In this connection, the learned counsel has placed the decision of the Apex Court in Roop Lal Sathi vs Nachhattar Singh, AIR 1982 SC 1559 . In this connection, the learned counsel has placed the decision of the Apex Court in Roop Lal Sathi vs Nachhattar Singh, AIR 1982 SC 1559 . The learned' counsel has also drawn my attention to other decisions of the Apex Court in Dr. Jagjit Singh vs. Giani Eartar Singh, AIR 1966 SC 773 and Arun Kumar Bose vs. Md Furkan Ansari, (1984) 1 SCC 91 . It may be stated that Arun Komar Hose (snpra) is not relevant to the present purpose as it was a case of re-counting of ballot papers and the Apex Court agreed with the views of the High Court that the material facts set out in the election petition were not defective. 18A. In Roop Lal Sathi (snpra) the question was whether the High Court was justified in striking out the paragraphs in the election petition on the ground of non-disclosure of material facts. Considering the facts of that case, the Apex Court held that the High Court was not justified as there was no finding reached by the High Court that the averments made in the relevant paragraphs were either unnecessary, frivolous or vexatious. This decision of facts is not relevant for our present purpose as it would be decided on the merits of the present petition. It was further held that the High Court has ample power while trying an election petition to direct for further and better particulars as to the nature of the claim or defence under Order VI of Rule 5 CPC. This question has been set at rest by the Apex Court which I shall presently deal with. In Dr.Jagjit Singh (supra) it was held that striking out rule of pleadings prescribed in the CPC cannot be invoked in an election proceeding. This law has been also settled in the subsequent decisions of the Apex Court and a contrary view was expressed. 19. In Dr.Jagjit Singh (supra) it was held that striking out rule of pleadings prescribed in the CPC cannot be invoked in an election proceeding. This law has been also settled in the subsequent decisions of the Apex Court and a contrary view was expressed. 19. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Azahar Hussain vs. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1986 SC 1253, and Dhartipakar vs. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1987 SC 1577 , was that on combined reading of sections 81, 83 86 and 87 of the Act, it is apparent that these paragraphs of a petition, which do not disclose any cause of action, are liable to be struck off under Order VI Rule 16, as the Court is empowered at any stage of the proceeding to strike out or delete pleading which is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the petition or suit It was further held that it is the duty of the Court to examine the plaint and need not wait till defence files written statement or points out the facts. According to the Apex Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the election petition does not make out any case and that the trial would prejudice, embarrass or delay the proceedings, the Court need not wait for filing of written statement instead it can proceed to hear the preliminary objection and strike out the pleadings and further if after striking out the pleadings the Court finds that not triable issues remain to be considered, it has rower to reject the election petition under Order VII Rule II. 20. In view of the above law the contention of Mr. Das that the this Court has no power to strike out the relevant paragraphs of the pleadings has no legs to stand. Mr. Das has further submitted that even at this stage the Court- can direct the petitioner to furnish further and better particulars. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel, in view of the above ratio laid down by the Apex Court. It my be stated that no formal petition has also been filed. 21. In Dhartipakar (supra) a similar petition for amendment of the pleading was also made and it was rejected. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel, in view of the above ratio laid down by the Apex Court. It my be stated that no formal petition has also been filed. 21. In Dhartipakar (supra) a similar petition for amendment of the pleading was also made and it was rejected. In rejecting the said application the Apex Court considered the period prescribed for filing such an election petition by section 87 of the Act and was of the view that no election petition is maintainable after the expiry of the above period and the High Court or the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to extend the said period. It was held that an order of amendment permitting a new ground to be raise beyond the times would amount to contravention of this provision I may add here that in absence of any formal petition for amendment, it is not clear to this Court as to the nature of amendment which the petitioner wants to make in respect of the present election petition. Therefore, the contention of Mr. Das is not acceptable. 22. In support of his contention in respect of the petition for striking out the respective paragraphs Dr. Sharma has urged that the statements made in these paragraphs are vague inasmuch as the manner, method and mode of bribery and obtaining assistance of Government servant have not been disclosed. According to Dr. Sharma in some of the paragraphs evidence has been stated and some allegations are general in nature and as such irrelevant. 23. Before dealing with each paragraphs separately, I may further state the law laid down by the Apex Court in this regard. I may add here that regarding material facts and particulars in the election petition and also obtaining assistance from the Government servant, I have already stated the law. In Azahar Hussain (supra) in para 21 it was observed that there was clear omission to mention the names of the workers said to be employed by the respondent who have allegedly painted the slogans and so also no materials were given as regards the vehicles on which the said slogans said to have been painted. On the basis of the above facts it was held that the material facts and particulars in regard to the alleged corrupt practice were not mentioned. On the basis of the above facts it was held that the material facts and particulars in regard to the alleged corrupt practice were not mentioned. Their Lordship also placed reliance in Nihal Singh vs. Rao Birendra Singh, (1970) 3 SCC 239 , and quoted the following paragraphs. "... 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 for which be could procure witnesses. The pleading, in fact, was so vague and was wanting in essential particulars that no evidence should have been permitted by the High Court on this point...” In con­sidering another allegation of corrupt practice their Lordships observed that no time, date and place of speeches delivered by the respondent were mentioned and no exact extracts from the speech were quoted; nor any material facts showing that such statement imputed to the respondent were indeed made been stated. In view of the above, their Lordship held that the essential ingredients of the alleged corrupt practice were not spelled out in the election petition. In respect of another allegation of corrupt practice for distribution of pamphlet their Lordship observed that election petition did not disclose when these pamphlets were distributed and where and to whom. After scrutinising all these allegations it was held that the pleading did not disclose the cause of action. I may also add that the similar view was also expressed in Dhartipakar (supra). 24. So, to sum up I say that this Court can strike out the paragraphs under Order VI, Rule 16 CPC on the grounds stated in the said Rule and for that purpose this Court can exercise the powers even before written statement is filed. If after striking out the pleadings the Court finds that no triable issues are there to be considered it has power to reject the election petition under Order VII Rule 11. Regarding corrupt practice, the election petition should contain concise statement of material facts and in case of corrupt practice also full particulars regarding the mode, manner, method of bribery or obtaining assistance from Government officials, or non-compliance of the provisions of the Act, Rules framed thereunder. The statements made in toe election petition should not be vague. [Pargraph 25 is not printed] 26. Dr. The statements made in toe election petition should not be vague. [Pargraph 25 is not printed] 26. Dr. Sharma has urged that id respect of paragraph 6 the petitioner stated that the meeting was organised by the respondent No.l, but manner, method and mode of organisation of the meeting have not been stated. According to Dr. Sharma, it has been stated in the said paragraph that the meeting was organised by local party workers, but the election petition does not disclose the names of the workers. That apart, according to Dr. Sharma, the exact place of the village and exact location of the meeting have not been specified with exactitude. Next attack in respect of this paragraph of the learned counsel is that though in the paragraph it has been stated that the respondent No.l addressed the gathering and requested the persons present in the meeting to induce the entire electors of the village to vote for him, but in the petition the contents of the speech and how the request had been made and the manner and method of inducement have not been stated. In this paragraph it has also been stated that the respondent No 1 brought out some bundles of currency notes of one hundred rupee denomination from his brief case and paid Rs. 25,000/- for distribution amongst the persons present in the meeting and also requested them to campaign for him in the village to induce the electors to vote for him, but the petition does not disclose though respondent No.l has stated that he saw himself the above fact, when and where and how many bundles of currency notes were brought out and so also the manner, mode and form of distribution, i.e. whether in cash or goods has not been stated in the petition. It has also not been stated the manner, form and method of campaigning to induce the voter. It has been stated that having come to know from his party workers about the above election meeting of the respondent No.l, the petitioner who was visiting the village on the same day and time went to the meeting. Accord­ing, to Dr. Sharma the petition does not disclose the names of the party workers from whom the petitioner came to know about the above meeting, 27. In support of the contentions. Dr. Accord­ing, to Dr. Sharma the petition does not disclose the names of the party workers from whom the petitioner came to know about the above meeting, 27. In support of the contentions. Dr. Sharma has placed reliant in Hardwari Lal (supra), Azar Hussain (supra) (paragraphs 14 onwards, particularly paragrphs 18 and 25) and Dhartipakar (supra). 28. I have gone through the entire paragraph 6 of the election petition and I find considerable force in the submissions of the learned counsel, for, respondent No.l. It is clear to me that in the petition, the manner, method and mode of organisation of the meeting and the manner and mode of inducement to he adopted by the persons present in the meeting have not been stated. The exact place of the meeting, where the meeting was held, has also not been stated. The names of the local party workers, who organised the meeting on behalf of the respondent No. l and also the names of the party workers from whom the petitioner came to know about the meeting have also not been stated. The full contents of the respondent have not been reproduced. The method for distribution of the amount alleged to have been given by the respondent No. 1 has also not been stated in the petition. In view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court quoted above, I am constrained to hold that the statements made in this paragraph is vague, which may tend to prejudice fair trial of the election petition, inasmuch as, there is wide scope for the petitioner to adduce evidence that he may find it convenient and could procure witnesses. That apart, the above paragraphs are wanting in essential particulars. Following the ratio 'aid down in Nihal Singh (supra), Azar Hussain (supra) and Dhartipakar (supra), I held that this paragraph is liable to be struck out and this paragraph also does not disclose cause of action. 29. Regarding paragraph 7, Dr. Sharma has urged the same points which were urged in respect of paragraph 6, inasmuch as, this paragraph also relates to the meeting in the village mentioned in the said paragraph and same allegation of distribution of Rs. 25,000/- by respondent No. l has been alleged. On comparing the paragraph 7 with paragraph 6, I find that the allegations made were exactly similar. 25,000/- by respondent No. l has been alleged. On comparing the paragraph 7 with paragraph 6, I find that the allegations made were exactly similar. Situated thus, T hold that this paragraph is lacking in material facts and also full particulars of corrupt practice, inasmuch as, the petitioner has not disclosed the manner, method and mode of arrangement of the meeting, inducing the electors to vote for respondent No. l and also distribution of 'he amount of Rs.25,000/- amongst the persons present in the meeting. This paragraph also does not disclose the full contents of the speech alleged to have been made by the respon­dent No. l and also the exact location of the meeting. In this case also the petitioner has stated that he came to know from the villagers about the 'aid meeting but the names of the villagers have not been disclosed. 30. In respect of this paragraph, it has been stated that some photographs were taken during the proceeding of the said meeting including the payment of cash amount and receiving the same. According to the petitioner he is making efforts to procure some photographs and this will be filed as soon as obtained. According to Dr. Sharma, these photographs are really a part of the election petition and should have been annexed with the petition. On the other ban , Mr. Das has urged that these photographs are only evidence and need not be annexed to the election petition. In reply, Dr. Sharm a has urged that if these photographs are only evidence, the above statement cannot find place in the election petition, in view of the provisions contained in Order VI Rule 2 CPC. [Paragraph 31 is not printed] 32. So the question for consideration is whether the photographs as stated in paragraph 7 are integral part of the election petition ? In paragraph 7 the contents in respect of which the photographs were alleged to have been taken have been stated and as such I am unable to hold that the photographs which the petitioner is trying to get are integral part of the election petition. As such, non-furnishing of the photographs would not amount to non-compliance with the provisions of section 81(3) of the Act. As such, non-furnishing of the photographs would not amount to non-compliance with the provisions of section 81(3) of the Act. These photographs if produced, in my opinion, would only amount to evidence in support of (he allegations made in paragraph 7 and as such, the said sub para of paragraph 7 is liable to be struck off as evidence is not be pleaded in a pleading. 33. Now I propose to examine paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the election petition as these relate to obtaining assistance of Government officials. In paragraph 8 of the petition some general allegations have been made against respondent No. I and these allegations are that he was MLA for about 10 years and a Deputy Minister for last five years. It has further been alleged that the respondent No. 1 is very rich man and also a powerful Minister and he exerted his power and influence on the Government officials in obtaining and/or procuring their assistance, for furtherance of his election prospect and also for in lacing the electors to vote for him. All the above allegations made in the said paragraph are not only vague, but also irrelevant. No particulars are given in this paragraph regarding manner, made and method of influen­cing the Government officials and procuring their assistance. Such particulars are also lacking regarding inducement of the electors and the names of the Government officials have also not been mentioned. In view of the settled law, this paragraph is liable to be struck off 34. In paragraph 9 general statement has been made that the result of the election has been materially affected due to corrupt practice taken recourse to by the respondent No. 1 within the meaning of section 123 (7) of the Act. In this paragraph also neither material facts nor particulars have been stated and only the wordings of the statute have been quoted. Therefore, this paragraph is also liable to be struck off. 35. In paragraph 10, it has been stated that the respondent No. 1 obtained assistance of one Sri Yalow Lumgu Gaonbura of Village Lumgu under Seppa Police Station in East Kameng District for furtherance of his election prospect. It has also been alleged that the Gaonbura, who is a Govern­ment servant in the State of Arunachal Pradesh canvassed for the respondent No. 1 after receipt of cash amount as gratification on 9. 2. It has also been alleged that the Gaonbura, who is a Govern­ment servant in the State of Arunachal Pradesh canvassed for the respondent No. 1 after receipt of cash amount as gratification on 9. 2. 90 in the meeting stated above and induced the electors of the village to vote for respondent No.1. lathis paragraph also how the said Gaonbura and in what mode, method and manner induced the electors to vote for respondent No. 1 have not been stated. How, the Gaonbura of a village in the State comes wit \in the category of the Government officials mentioned in subsection (7) of section I2J of the Act has not been stated in the election petition. In the course of argument, m.t, Das. learned counsel for the petitioner urged that Gaonbura is Revenue Officer and he collects revenue. Whether he collects revenue on commission or share basis or whether be is paid monthly is not known. From the averments made in the said paragraph , I find it difficult to come to the prima facie opinion on this point. Even without deciding this question, this paragraph cannot find place in the election petition as the statements made are vague. 36. From paragraph 11,1 find that the main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No.l procured/obtained the assistance of Sri O.P.Sharma a Junior Engineer, PWD who was the Presiding Officer of the Polling Station No.9/32 at Jote Cheda. According to the petitioner Sri Sharma stayed in the house of Sri Karo Cheda who was the Polling Agent of the respondent No. I at the said polling station, accepted hospitability at the instruction and with the consent of respondent No. 1. When, where and how such consent/ instruction was given by the respondent No.l have not been stated. Reading the entire paragraph, I am of the opinion that the statements made in this paragraph are vague and the prayer for striking out is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Azar Hussain (sopra). [Paragraph 37 is not printed] 38. In this paragraph (para 12) also in respect of sub paragraphs fi) and (») when, what manner, how and whose presence the respondent No. 1 gave consent to Sri Sharma have not been stated. In the paragraph names of 4 persons, who were alleged to have been threatened to kill have not been mentioned. [Paragraph 37 is not printed] 38. In this paragraph (para 12) also in respect of sub paragraphs fi) and (») when, what manner, how and whose presence the respondent No. 1 gave consent to Sri Sharma have not been stated. In the paragraph names of 4 persons, who were alleged to have been threatened to kill have not been mentioned. The time, place and manner of threatening and dissuading the voters have also not been stated. In sub-para (iii) time and date of reporting by the Polling Agent to the Presiding Officer have not been disclosed. It may be stated that under the Rules only one Polling Agent of each candidate is allowed. The manner, mode and method of giving consent by respondent No. 1 for illegal acts of the Presiding Officer have also not been stated. In sub para (iv) the names of 19 voters have not been disclosed. In this paragraph it has been alleged that 19 valid votes cast in favour of the petitioner were made invalid by the Presiding Officer by forcefully taking away the marked ballot papers from the voters, but in the Annexure-E, only 12 names have been given and other names have not been disclosed. The time of the above action has also not been stated. Though, it has been stated that it was done in collusion with the Polling Agent of the respondent No. 1. but how and where such collusion took place have not been fully disclosed. The method of force used by the Presiding Officer has not been prescribed. In sub-para (v) allegation of impersonation by the Polling-Agent of respondent No. 1 in respect of 5 electors has been made. It has also been stated that the Polling Agent of the petitioner objected, but instead of taking action the said Polling Agent was threatened. In this sub paragraph the petitioner has not disclosed the name of the Polling Agent and manner, method, time, place and form of objection by the said Polling Agent have also not been disclosed. It has also been stated that the Polling Agent of the petitioner objected, but instead of taking action the said Polling Agent was threatened. In this sub paragraph the petitioner has not disclosed the name of the Polling Agent and manner, method, time, place and form of objection by the said Polling Agent have also not been disclosed. In view of the above what has been stated, I am of the opinion that this paragraph is vague and is liable to be struck off It may be stated that under section 129 of the Act, the officials mentioned in the said section shall not in the conduct or the management of the election do any act other than giving vote for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of a candidate. In this paragraph 12, there is no statement that the alleged acts were done for the furtherance of the prospect of the election of the respondent No, 1. 39. In paragraphs 13 to 16, allegations have been made regarding illegalities and irregularities alleged to have been committed by the Presiding Officer and therefore, these paragraphs have also to be examined in the light of the provisions contained in section 129 of the Act. 40. In para 13, it has been alleged that the information regarding alleged illegalities and irregularities in respect of Polling Station No. 9/32 mentioned in the paragraph 13 was first received by Sri Gaging Doka on 27.2.90 at 2. P.M. Sri Gaging Doka along with one Sri Tame Yangpo made written complaint to the Circle Officer, on behalf of the petitioner, who dint take any action and therefore another complaint was filed on 29.2.90 but they were informed that unless the complaint is filed by the candidate himself, no action could be taken. 41. Apart from the fact that the statements made in this paragraph can be treated only as evidence of subsequent event, the paragraph does not disclose the contents of the two complaint petitions and also the names of the complainant. It has also not been disclosed where the complaints petition were filed before the Circle Officer and thereafter the Returning Officer. Though, it has been stated that the petitioner was elsewhere, it has not been disclosed where the petitioner was at the relevant time. It has also not been disclosed where the complaints petition were filed before the Circle Officer and thereafter the Returning Officer. Though, it has been stated that the petitioner was elsewhere, it has not been disclosed where the petitioner was at the relevant time. Therefore I am of the opinion that this paragraph not only contains evidence but the statements made therein are also vague. 42. In paragraph 14 of the petition, it has been stated that on 3.3.90 at 6 P.M. after the counting was over and result was declared, Sri Gaging Doka and Sri Babo Cheda, "oiling Agents of the petitioner told the petitioner about the illegalities and irregularities committed by the Presiding Officer and the Polling Agents of respondent No. l in the said Polling Station No. 9/32. It has further been stated that the petitioner rushed to the Returning Officer and made written complaint against the Presiding Officer who expressed his helplessness as the result had been declared. It is also stated that the Returning Officer sent the complaint of the petitioner to Seppa Police Station for enquiry and accordingly a case was registered. According to the petitioner after making local enquiries found the reports of illegalities and irregularities to be correct. It has been explained that the copies of the complaint petitions could not be files as the petitioner and his agent did not retain any personal copy. 43. In this paragraph, the petitioner has not disclosed where and when he was told about the illegalities and irregularities. The petition also doss not disclose the contents of the written complaint aid also the nature, form and manner and from whom the petitioner made local enquiries In the said paragraph though it has been stated that the copy of the FIR has been annexed as Annexure G, it is only the form of the First Information Report and actual FIR has not been annexed. As the contents of the FIR have not been stated in the said paragraph, the said report being an integral part of the petition ought to have annexed to the petition. So, this paragraph is liable to be struck off. 44. As the contents of the FIR have not been stated in the said paragraph, the said report being an integral part of the petition ought to have annexed to the petition. So, this paragraph is liable to be struck off. 44. In paragraph 15, it has been alleged that on the basis of the FIR the Presiding Officer was arrested but he was released and the respondent No. I took necessary steps for release of Shri Sharma on bail and entrusted Sri Talak Cheda to take necessary action in this regard, who took Sri Sharma on bail. It has also been stated that the Investiga­ting Officer also recorded the statement of the petitioner on 23.3.90 and a copy of the said statement has been annexed as Annexure H, 45. This paragraph does not disclose when and where Shri Sharma was arrested and released on bail. The manner, form and nature of the steps taken to get the bail for Shri Sharma and how and in what manner Sri Talak Cheda was entrusted have also not been stated. A general statement has been made in this paragraph and the facts stated in the paragraph would show that the respondent No. 1 obtained active assistance from Shri Sharma and this general statement is irrelevant. This paragraph is liable to be struck off, 46. In paragraph 16 the petitioner has averred that the Returning Officer sent the complaint of the petitioner to the Director of Rural Development, who was the Election Observer and who was also present at the said Polling Station during the commission of the alleged illegalities and irregularities. It has further been stated that four persons named in the paragraph appeared before the said observer. According to the petitioner the Election Observer submitted a detailed report to the Election Commission, but he could not obtain the report and he has prayed that this Court may direct the Election Commission to produce the report. 47. This paragraph is irrelevant and also contained evidence and on top of that this is a supporting material regarding event subsequent to the date of the poll. It may also be stated that the petitioner has not stated when and where he approached the Returning Officer for copy of the report. On the above grounds this paragraph is liable to be struck off. 48. It may also be stated that the petitioner has not stated when and where he approached the Returning Officer for copy of the report. On the above grounds this paragraph is liable to be struck off. 48. In paragraph 17, it has been alleged that in the above Polling Station No. 9/32 there was cent percent polling, "which is simply unbe­lievable because of the fact that the area of the said polling station is backward in communication and inhabited by majority of illiterate people who do not take much interest in exercising their precious right of franchise. It has also been stated the fact that the petitioner got two votes and the respondent No. 158 votes would show that there were illegalities and irregularities committed by the Presiding Officer. It has further been stated, that "the things will be clear if the ballot paper account prepared in Form 16 by the Presiding Officer of the said polling station is examined". According to the petitioner the Presiding Officer did not furnish a copy of the entries made in the ballot paper account as required under Rule 45(2) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 to the Polling Agent of the petitioner. 49. The petitioner has not disclosed the names of the Polling Agents who asked for ballot paper account from the Presiding Officer and refusal of such account. In this paragraph, it has been stated that illegalities and irregularities were committed by the Presiding Officer and the agents of the respondent No. 1, but the names of the agents of the respondent No. 1 have not been stated. The statement that "things would be clear if the ballot paper account" is examined is only surmises and as such vague. On the above grounds, the statement made in this paragraph is liable to be struck off, I may add here that the statements made in paragraphs 14, 15, 16, and 17 were facts subsequent to the polling and declaration of the result. 50. On the above grounds, the statement made in this paragraph is liable to be struck off, I may add here that the statements made in paragraphs 14, 15, 16, and 17 were facts subsequent to the polling and declaration of the result. 50. In paragraph 18, a statement has been made that the result «f the election in so far as it concerns the respondent No.I has materially been affected due to reception f 5 valid votes cast in favour of respondent No.I by impersonation as stated in paragraph 12 (v) This paragraph does not disclose the serial number of ballot papers and also manner and method of impersonation and as such this paragraph is liable to be struck off on the ground of want of material facts and particulars. 51. In paragraph 19, it has been stated that the result of election was materially affected due to rejection of 19 valid votes cast in favour of the petitioner which were rendered invalid by illegal acts of the Presiding Officer as stared in paragraph 12.The petitioner has not disclosed the numbers and particulars of the ballot papers, which the counting agents are supposed to record at the time of counting and on this count, this paragraph is liable to be struck off. 52. In paragraph 20, it has been stated that the "respondent No.I spent lavishly during, the election -a question far exceeding the prescribed limit of Rs.lO,000/-for the State of Arunachal Pradesh". It has further been stated that the respondent No.I had shown far less amount in his return of account suppressing "some expenses incurred on certain items which have not been included in the said return.” 53. This paragraph is absolutely vague inasmuch as the manner, method time and place and facts pertaining to lavish spending by respondent Ho. I have not been stated. That apart, details of incurring expenses have not been given by the petitioner and the petitioner has not stated the amount disclosed by the respondent No.I in his account filed before the Returning Officer. On the ground of vagueness the paragraph is liable to be struck off. 54. I have not been stated. That apart, details of incurring expenses have not been given by the petitioner and the petitioner has not stated the amount disclosed by the respondent No.I in his account filed before the Returning Officer. On the ground of vagueness the paragraph is liable to be struck off. 54. For what has been stated above, all the paragraphs mentioned are liable to be struck off, which I hereby do After striking out all these paragraphs, no triable issues remain to be considered in the present election petition, as such, the petition is liable to be rejected under Order VK Rule 1? CPC, which also I hereby do. 55. Now let me consider the petition filed by the respondent No.! praying for dismissal of the election petition on the ground of maintainability and not in form. 56. Some of the contentions raised 01 behalf of the respondent Nol. have been taken up while considering the petition for striking out the paragraphs and I need not consider those submissions. 57. Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel for respondent No.l his attacked the petition, on the ground of non-compliance of sub-section (3, of section 8! of the Act. In this connection, the learned counsel has urged that its, required under the law the petitioner has not served the true copy of the election petition and the annexures on respondent No.l. 58. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the election petition and also the annexure have been signed by the petitioner. There is no dispute that in the pages of the election petition and the Annexures the words ''true copy" were not mentioned before the signature of the petitioner. Mr. Das hat placed reliance in the decisions of the Apex Court in Ch Subbarao vs Member Election Tribuoal, AIR 1964 SC 1027 , Satyanarayan vs. Dhuja Ram, AIR 1974 SC 1185 and M.Kamalam vs. V.A Syed Mohammed, AIR 1978 SC 840 . 59. In Satya Narayan (supra) the petition was signed by the petitioner but there was no attestation in the sense that the words ''true copy" were omitted above the signature of the petitioner. 59. In Satya Narayan (supra) the petition was signed by the petitioner but there was no attestation in the sense that the words ''true copy" were omitted above the signature of the petitioner. The Apex Court relying on the earlier decisions held that the signature in original was there in the copy, the presence of such original signature in the copy was sufficient to indicate that the copy was attested as a true copy even though the words 'true copy' were not written above the signature in the copies. The same view was expressed in the decision in Ch. Subbarao (supra). In M. Kamalam (supra) there were allegations of corrupt practices and in this case also the petitioner put his signature at the end of the affidavit and not on the election petition. On this fact the Apex Court held that this can not be a ground of dismissing the election petition as law does not require that the authenticating signature must be made at any particular place in the copy of 'he election petition. It was further held that the copy of the election petition and the signature placed at the foot of the copy of the affidavit has, clearly referable to the entire copy of the petition. 60. Situated thus, the law laid down by the Apex Court is clear that in an election petition or in annexures and particulars annexed to the said petition if the petitioner does not put the words ''true copy" above the signature, it would not be fatal and the petition can not be thrown out on the ground of non-compliance of section 81 (3) of the Act. Further, each page of the election petition need not be signed by the petitioner and the signature in the affidavit would be sufficient compliance of the above section. 61. In view of the above law, I am unable to accept the contentions of Mr. Mazumdar that the election petition is not maintainable. 62. Next point urged by Mr. Mazumdar is that the affidavit in the present election petition is not in Form 25 as laid down under Rule 94 A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Mr. 61. In view of the above law, I am unable to accept the contentions of Mr. Mazumdar that the election petition is not maintainable. 62. Next point urged by Mr. Mazumdar is that the affidavit in the present election petition is not in Form 25 as laid down under Rule 94 A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that even though the affidavit is not in form it is sufficient for the present purpose, inasmuch as, the petitioner has stated on oath regarding the contents of the election petition. 63. There is no dispute that section 83 of the Act is mandatory. The proviso to clause (c) of sub section (1) of section 83 of the Act lays-down that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegations of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof. Rule 94 A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 lays down that the affidavit referred to in the provision to sub-section (1) of section 83 shall be sworn before a Magistrate First Class or Notary or a Commissioner of Oath and shall be in Form 25. The relevant clauses of Form 25 are quoted below :- (a) that the statements made in paragraphs . . of the accompanying election petition about the commission of corrupt practice of (name of corrupt practice has to be specified) and the particulars of such corrupt practice mentioned in paragraphs.....of the same petition and in par­agraphs..... of the schedule annexed thereto are true to my knowledge; (b) that the statements made in paragraphs of the said petition about the commission of corrupt practice of (name of the corrupt practice has to be specified) and the particulars of such corrupt practice given in paragraphs ... of the said petition and in paragraphs ...of the schedule annexed thereto are true to my information :". 64. Thus reading these clauses of the affidavit in the said Form 25 it is-absolutely clear that the affidavit has to be not only in respect of paragraphs mentioned in the election petition, but also in respect of particulars of corrupt practice and the schedule annexed to the petition. As the section 83 of the Act is mandatory, it follows that the affidavit in the above form is also-mandatory. As the section 83 of the Act is mandatory, it follows that the affidavit in the above form is also-mandatory. It may however be stated that the affidavit may not be exactly in the same form but the affidavit must refer not only to the relevant paragraphs mentioned in the election petition, but also to the particulars of the corrupt practice and the schedule annexed thereto 65. Coming to the case ii hand along with the election petition, there are as many as 8 annexures. Though separate particulars regarding corrupt practices have not been given and these have been incorporated in the petition itself, I am of the opinion that on this count, the election petition cannot be thrown out. But in the affidavit, no mention has been made to the above 8 annexures annexed to the election petition, and as such, I hold that the affidavit is not in form and as there is non-compliance of section 83 of the Act, the petition is liable to be rejected. For the reasons stated above, I accept both the petitions and reject. the election petition for the reasons stated above. The petitioner shall pay cost of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) to the respondent No.l. Office is directed to take action under section 103 of the Act.