H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under order 6, Rule 16 and order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with sections 83 and 87 of the representation of the People Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as "the act of 1951". By this application which is supported by an affidavit, it has been asserted and prayed that the present election petition filed by the opposite party i. e. , the petitioner be rejected, after striking out the pleadings in the election petition so far as those pleadings relating to corrupt practices, referred to in paragraphs 6 to 12, along with the annexures-j, j-1, l, m and n. ( 2 ) THE objections has also been filed to the said application by the election petitioner i. e. , the opposite party to the interim application. ( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the general election to the 10th Karnataka legislative assembly was notified to take place on November 26, 1994 and the counting was scheduled to take place on December 9, 1994. That as per notification the period prescribed for filing of the nominations was from 24th october, 1994 to 31st of october, 1994. According to the petitioner who moved the election petition, he had filed his nomination paper as a candidate of Indian national congress on October 31, 1994, while the respondent (i. e. , the present applicant) who was set up as bharatiya janata party candidate, had filed his nomination as bharatiya janata party candidate on October 27, 1994. After the scrutiny and expiry of the last date for withdrawal, the list of contesting candidates was published and the polling did take place on 26th of november, 1994. According to the petitioner the counting of the ballot papers did take place on 9th december, 1994 and the respondent in the election petition (i. e. , the present applicant) Sri k. s. eshwarappa was declared to have been elected from 162, shimoga assembly constituency, to the Karnataka legislative assembly, as per election report published by the returning officer in form No. 21e. The candidates secured the votes as hereinafter in that election. " (1) Smt. Indramma (Independent Candidate) 155 votes. (2) Sri K. S. Eshwarappa (B. J. P, Candidate and the respondent herein) 57,385 votes. (3) Sri S. Chandrappa (Independent Candidate) 225 votes. The candidates secured the votes as hereinafter in that election. " (1) Smt. Indramma (Independent Candidate) 155 votes. (2) Sri K. S. Eshwarappa (B. J. P, Candidate and the respondent herein) 57,385 votes. (3) Sri S. Chandrappa (Independent Candidate) 225 votes. (4) Sri J. M. Nanjundaiah (Kannada Chaluvali Vatal Paksha) 88 votes. (5) Sri N. S. Prabhu (Independent Candidate) 168 votes. (6) Sri K. S. Puttappa (Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha Candidate) 1,370 votes. (7) Sri B. Mallikarjuna Rao (Karnataka Congress Party Candidate) 4,196 votes. (8) Sri G. Madhappa (Janatha Dal Candidate) 5, 267 votes. (9) Sri K. H. Srinivas (Indian National Congress Candidate and the petitioner herein) 41,219 votes". ". ( 4 ) DECLARATION of result in form No. 21c was also issued, declaring the present applicant i. e. , respondents to the election petition to have been elected from No. 162, shimoga assembly constituency to the Karnataka legislative assembly, on 9th december, 1994. ( 5 ) HAVING felt aggrieved from the results of the election, the opposite party to la. No. Ii - Sri k. h. srinivas, filed the election petition in question i. e. , election petition No. 11 of 1995 on 23-1-1995. In paragraph 3 of the election petition it has been stated "that in this election petition, the petitioner challenges the election of the respondent to the Karnataka legislative assembly from No. 162, shimoga assembly constituency. The ground on which the election petition is presented is the electoral corrupt practice as contemplated under sections 77 and 123 (1) (a), (3), (4) and (6) of the representation of the People Act, 1951. ( 6 ) IN the nut shell it appear that the election has been challenged on the ground of corrupt practices bribery, appeal on the ground of religion, race, caste, etc. , On the other ground of publication of false statement of fact, on the statement of fact believed to be false and not to be true in relation to personal character or conduct of the petitioner calculated to prejudice the prospects of the candidate and the last ground i. e. , the ground of incurring or authorizing of expenditure in contravention of Section 77 of the act of 1951. ( 7 ) THE all egations regarding alleged corrupt practices have been made in paragraphs 5 to 13 of the election petition, which will be referred to and considered at the proper place. ( 7 ) THE all egations regarding alleged corrupt practices have been made in paragraphs 5 to 13 of the election petition, which will be referred to and considered at the proper place. Along with the election petition, the petitioner has annexed various documents as annexures-a to n. ( 8 ) THE returned candidate i. e. , respondent in the election petition namely Sri k. s. eshwarappa, as mentioned above filed this application la. No. Ii for striking of the pleadings in the election petition so far as they related to corrupt practices (a) relating to bribery. So far bribery to the extent it is mentioned in paragraph 6 of the allegations relating to the corrupt practice covered by Section 123 (1) (a) of the act of 1951. So far as they are contained in paragraphs 11 and 12 with reference to publication annexures-j and j-1, l, m and n, with reference to the allegations of corrupt practices under sections 123 (4) and 123 (3) of the act of 1951. The respondent-applicant had also prayed for striking of the allegations in paragraphs 6 to 10 relating to election expenses, alleging the same to be corrupt practice under Section 123 (6) of the act of 1951. ( 9 ) THE case of the respondent i. e. , the applicant is that the averments in the election petition relating to various items of corrupt practices do not contain the required material facts making out a complete cause of action. According to the applicant, allegations in the election petition are vague and general in nature. According to the applicant (i. e. , the returned candidate), the necessary ingredients for a particular corrupt practice and the facts constituting the ingredients of that practice have not been stated and as such the election petition is vague and it lacks in full and material particulars. In paragraphs 5 to 8 of the affidavit to the application la. No. Ii, the applicant has tried to place the details of his case and ground for dismissal of the election on the ground that mandate of Section 83 (l) (a) of the act have not been fulfilled and so the applicant i. e. , the returned candidate prayed for striking out of pleadings relating to corrupt practices and for rejection of the election petition. ( 10 ) THAT objections to this la. ( 10 ) THAT objections to this la. No. It have been filed by the election petitioner-sri k. h. srinivasa. It has been asserted by the election petitioner in his objections to i. a. , in question that the application i. a. No. Ii has been misconceived and bereft of any merits. It has further been stated therein neither order 6, Rule 16 nor under order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, is attracted to the instant case and that no case has been made out by the respondent-applicant in support of i. a. No. I, for striking out of any portion of the pleadings in the election petition. The opposite party to the application namely the election petitioner in his objection has further stated that the stand taken by the respondent-applicant to the effect that all the details required to be stated in relation to the allegations of corrupt practice are not been stated in the petition, is far from truth. It has further been stated in the affidavit to the objections, by the petitioner that "the petitioner has stated in the election petition all the required details within the knowledge of the petitioner in relation to the allegations of corrupt practices, which clearly establishes the cause of action to proceed with the election petition" and as such according to the objector-election petitioner the applicant (respondent in the election petition) is not entitled to the relief claimed in the i. a. , and the i. a. , will have to be rejected. ( 11 ) I have heard Sri b. v. acharya, learned senior Advocate appearing for the respondent-applicant assisted by Sri h. g. ramesh, an Advocate of this court for Sri b. l. acharya, in support of the application ia. No. Ii and Sri a. k. subbaiah, learned counsel for the election petitioner i. e. , opposite party to i. a. No. Ii at length. No. Ii and Sri a. k. subbaiah, learned counsel for the election petitioner i. e. , opposite party to i. a. No. Ii at length. ( 12 ) IT has been contended on behalf of the applicant i. e. , the respondent-returned candidate by Sri b. v. acharya that in view of the Provisions of order 6, Rule 16 and order 7, Rule 11 of the C. P. C. read with sections 83 and 87, the legal position is that an election petition which does not contain a complete statement of material facts and statement of particulars relating to an alleged corrupt practice cannot be said to disclose the cause of action for the election petition and in such cases the allegations relating to corrupt practices have got to be struck down and the petition should be dismissed. In support of the above contentions Sri b. v. acharya placed reliance on the decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in the Case of Azhar Hussain v Rajiv Gandhi, and another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v Shri Rajiv Gandhi. ( 13 ) ON behalf of the election petitioner i. e. , opposite party to the i. a. , Sri a. k. subbaiah, learned counsel, submitted that the allegations made in the affidavit do not make out a case for exercise of powers under order 6, Rule 16 of the C. P. C. he submitted that it is not stated by the applicant in the said application that the pleadings were unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or that they have the tendency to prejudice or embarrass or delay the fair trial of the election petition or may otherwise amount to abuse of the process of the court and as such the pleadings cannot be ordered to be struck out or deleted. Sri a. k. subbaiah further submitted that all the material facts at the best which the election petitioner could place have been pleaded and alleged in the election petition. He submitted that the cause of action has been revealed and has been stated with reference to the grounds on which the petition has been filed, challenging the election of the respondent-applicant. He further submitted that the petition cannot be dismissed if even on one of the cases or ground cause is shown to be made out. He submitted that the cause of action has been revealed and has been stated with reference to the grounds on which the petition has been filed, challenging the election of the respondent-applicant. He further submitted that the petition cannot be dismissed if even on one of the cases or ground cause is shown to be made out. His main emphasis has been to the effect that the grounds on which the election petition has been filed in respect of each ground covered by Section 100 read with Section 123 of the Act, full particulars have been given for the cause of action. He further submitted that if there is some discrepancy or deficiency of particulars it can be supplied by amendment. For the present no application for amendment has been filed as well. ( 14 ) IN the course of arguments to the rejoinder Sri acharya again laid emphas is that there is lack of material facts and particulars. He submitted that the test is as to whether all material facts have been made out in the pleadings. It is to be seen if on the case as pleaded in the petition, if respondent does not put in appearance, or admits pleadings as contained in the election petition, can the petitioner get the relief claimed?. If the facts pleaded can by themselves be found sufficient for grant of relief, then it may be held that there to be a case of full compliance with the requirements of Section 83 of the act of 1951, but if the pleadings are defective, vague and not specific and lack in material statement of facts and particulars, then in that case pleadings in respect of items which are vague, unspecific and which lack in particulars, have got to be struck down. With respect to each item, their respective submissions will be discussed at the proper place. ( 15 ) I have applied my mind to the respective contentions made by counsels for applicant and the opposite party to the application. Before i proceed to consider the matter in detail it would be just and proper to have a glance to the relevant Provisions of election law. Remedies under election law are not common law remedies. They are governed by the statutory Provisions and therefore the remedy is statutory one and subject to the Provisions of law namely representation of the People Act, 1951. Remedies under election law are not common law remedies. They are governed by the statutory Provisions and therefore the remedy is statutory one and subject to the Provisions of law namely representation of the People Act, 1951. ( 16 ) SECTION 80 of the act of 1951 very clearly provides that no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the Provisions of part 6 of the representation of the People Act, 1951. A reading of Section 80 per se debars the questioning of election of a returned candidate except by an election petition presented in accordance with the Provisions of the act of 1951. That is if an election petition has been filed otherwise than under the Provisions of the Act, it will not be open to question or to consider the question relating to election. Section 80-a of the act of 1951, provides that the election petition shall be tried by the high court and such jurisdiction shall ordinarily be exercised by a single judge of the high court as is nominated and assigned by the chief Justice for the purpose, and one or more judges may be so assigned. Section 81 of the act of 1951 provides that the election petition calling in question an election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified under sub-section (1) of Section 100 and Section 101 to the high court by any candidate at such election or any elector, within a period of 45 days from the date of election of the returned candidate. Sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the act of 1951 prescribes the number of copies of the petition to be accompanied and that every copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature. Section 82 of the act of 1951 deals with the parties of the petition, Section 83 of the act of 1951 deals with the contents of the petition. It indicates what should be contained in the petition. It reads as under:"83. Contents of petition. Section 82 of the act of 1951 deals with the parties of the petition, Section 83 of the act of 1951 deals with the contents of the petition. It indicates what should be contained in the petition. It reads as under:"83. Contents of petition. (1) an election petition, (a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies; (b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of such practice; and (c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the verification of pleadings: provided 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 allegation of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof. (2) any schedule or Annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition". Section 84 of the act of 1951 prescribes the reliefs that can be claimed by the petitioner. Section 86 of the act of 1951 deals with the trial of election petition and sub-section (1) of Section 86 of the act of 1951 provides that an election petition which does not comply with the Provisions of Section 81 or 82 or Section 117 of the Act, shall be dismissed. Section 87 of the act of 1951 prescribes the procedure and it reads as under:"87. Procedure before the high court. Section 87 of the act of 1951 prescribes the procedure and it reads as under:"87. Procedure before the high court. (1) subject to the Provisions of this act and of any rules made thereunder, every election petition shall be tried by the high court, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) to the trial of suits: provided that the high court shall have the discretion to refuse, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to examine any witness or witnesses if it is of the opinion that the evidence of such witness or witnesses is not material for the decision of the petition or that the party tendering such witness or witnesses is doing so on frivolous grounds or with a view to delay the proceedings. (2) the Provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), shall subject to the Provisions of this Act, be deemed to apply in all respects to the trial of an election petition". ( 17 ) A reading of Section 87, sub-section (1) of the act of 1951, per se shows that subject to the Provisions of the Representation of People Act and the rules made thereunder, the election petition shall be tried by the high court as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure to the trial of suits. Sub-section (1) of Section 81 and Section 83 of the act of 1951 read along with sub-section (1) of Section 87 thereof per se reveals that an election petition drafted and presented in accordance with the requirements of Section 83 (1) of the act of 1951, containing concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies and which sets forth full particulars of any corrupt practice which the petitioner alleges including full statement of the names of parties alleged to have committed corrupt practice and the date and place of commission of each such practice and sign and verify as required by clause (c), of Section 83 (1) of the Act, as well as be accompanied by an affidavit in case of allegations of corrupt practice, in support of those allegations of corrupt practice and the particulars thereof, can be the only mode to question the election of a candidate as prescribed by the act and the same has to be tried nearly in accordance with the procedure applicable under Civil Procedure Code. The procedure applicable under c. p. c. , to suits will apply to trial of election petitions so far as it is not in conflict with the Provisions of the representation of the People Act, 1951 and the rules framed thereunder. ( 18 ) ORDER 6, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for striking out of the pleadings. It reads as under:"rule 16. Striking out pleadings. the court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any matter in any pleading, (a) which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or (b) which may tend to prejudice, embarass or delay the fair trial of the suit; or (c) which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court". the court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any matter in any pleading, (a) which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or (b) which may tend to prejudice, embarass or delay the fair trial of the suit; or (c) which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court". ( 19 ) ORDER 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for rejection of the plaint in cases where it does not disclose a cause of action; or where the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so or where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so. Rule 11 of order 7 reads as under:"rule 11. Rejection of plaint. the plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so". ( 20 ) A reading of Rule 11 of order 7, particularly clause (a)there of on one hand and clauses (b) and (c) on the other per se, reveals that no cases covered by clauses (b) and (c), before the plaint could be rejected on either of the grounds mentioned in clause (b) or (c), court is required to call upon the plaintiff to correct the valuation or to supply deficiency of the court fee and if on being so required, he fails to do so, the court may reject the plaint, but in cases where the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the court is not required to call upon the plaintiff to supply the deficiency of the cause of action or deficiency in the allegations of the plaint relating to cause of action or to remove the vagueness of allegations relating to cause of action, instead Rule 11 directs that where the cause of action is not disclosed and full facts constituting the cause of action are not disclosed the court without calling for the plaintiff to supply the deficiency in the matter of allegations of cause of action has to reject the plaint. There is no duty cast on the court as to call upon the plaintiff to remove the defect in the allegations of plaint relating to cause of action, it can out right reject it. A reading of order 7, Rule 11 per se shows that when applied to the election case or in the matter of election petition, if the material statement of facts and particulars which is required to be given in the election petition to disclose cause of action has not been given specifically, clearly and succinctly and the reading of the petition discloses deficiency or lack of material statement of facts and particulars which are required to be stated to disclose the cause of action, the high court trying the petition can dismiss the petition, if no cause of action is disclosed at all. ( 21 ) PROVISIONS of Rule 16 of order 6 empowers the court to order the striking out of the pleadings or it may also direct a pleading to be granted in cases where the pleadings are unnecessary or scandalous or frivolous or vexatious or it has got the tendency of prejudicing or embarassing or delaying the trial of the suit or it has the tendency to result in abuse of the process of the court. This indicate that while striking out the pleadings the court has to first take into consideration, if the pleadings sought to be struck out suffers from any such things or circumstances as are indicated in clauses (a), (b) or (c) of Rule 16. If after striking out the pleadings also, it is found that no cause action remains the petition can be dismissed. ( 22 ) WHEN i so opine, i find support from the principles of law laid down by their lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of azhar hussain, supra. Their lordships of the Supreme Court observed that "the fact that Section 83 does not find place in Section 86 of the act does not mean that powers under the code of civil procedure cannot be exercised. Their lordships thereafter referred to the decision of Hardwari Lal v Kanwal Singh , and quoted the following observations from the judgment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice a. n. ray, who spoke in that case for the three judge bench, as under:"counsel on behalf of the respondent submitted that an election petition could not be dismissed by reason of want of material facts because Section 86 of the act conferred power on the high court to dismiss the election petition which did not comply with the Provisions of Section 81, or Section 82 or Section 117 of the act. It was emphasized that Section 83 did not find place in Section 86. Under Section 87 of the act every election petition shall be tried by the high court as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to the trial of the suits. A suit which does not furnish cause of action can be dismissed". Under Section 87 of the act every election petition shall be tried by the high court as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to the trial of the suits. A suit which does not furnish cause of action can be dismissed". ( 23 ) AFTER making reference to the above observations from the decision of hardwari lal's case, supra, their lordships of the supreme court in the case of azhar hussain, as per observations made by Hon'ble thakkar, j. , Laid it down as under:"in view of this pronouncement, there is no escape from the conclusion that an election petition can be summarily dismissed if it does not furnish cause of action in exercise of the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure. So also it emerges from the aforesaid decision that the appropriate orders in exercise of powers under the Code of Civil Procedure can be passed if the mandatory requirements enjoined by Section 83 of the act to incorporate the material facts in the election petition are not complied with. This court in Samant N. Balakrishna v George Fernandez, has expressed itself in no unclear terms that the omission of a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action and that an election petition without the material facts relating to a corrupt practice is not an election petition at all. . . . All the facts which are essential to clothe the petition with complete cause of action must be pleaded and failure to plead even a single material fact would amount to disobedience of the mandate of Section 83 (1) (a ). An election petition therefore can be and must be dismissed if it suffers from any such vice". ( 24 ) IN the case of dhartipakar, supra, their lordships of the Supreme Court reiterated the same principle of law. It will be profitable to quote the following observations of their lordships in the above mentioned case of dhartipakar. Hon'ble Mr. An election petition therefore can be and must be dismissed if it suffers from any such vice". ( 24 ) IN the case of dhartipakar, supra, their lordships of the Supreme Court reiterated the same principle of law. It will be profitable to quote the following observations of their lordships in the above mentioned case of dhartipakar. Hon'ble Mr. Justice k. n. singh, delivering the judgment on behalf of the court, observed:"on a combined reading of sections 81, 83, 86 and 87 of the Act, it is apparent that those paras of an election petition which do not disclose any cause of action, are liable to be struck off under order 6, Rule 16, c. p. c. , as the court is empowered at any stage of the proceedings to strike out or delete pleading which is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or which may tend to prejudice or embarrass or delay the fair trial of the petition or suit. It is the duty of the court to examine the plaint and it need not wait till the defendant files written statement and points out the defects. If the court on examination of the plaint or the election petition finds that it does not disclose any cause of action it would be justified in striking out the pleadings. Order 6, Rule 16 itself empowers the court to strike out pleadings at any stage of the proceedings which may even be before the filing of the written statement by the respondent or commencement of the trial. If the court is satisfied that the election petition does not make out any cause of action and that the trial would prejudice, embarrass and delay the proceedings, the court need not wait for the filing of the written statement instead it can proceed to hear the preliminary objections and strike out the pleadings. If after striking out the pleadings the court finds that no triable issue remain to be considered. It has power to reject the election petition under order 7, Rule 11". ( 25 ) AS to what is meant by unnecessary harassment, the court explained and quoted the following observations of Hon'ble Mr. Justice bhagwati. "we are of opinion that both the election tribunal and the high court were wrong in the view they took. It has power to reject the election petition under order 7, Rule 11". ( 25 ) AS to what is meant by unnecessary harassment, the court explained and quoted the following observations of Hon'ble Mr. Justice bhagwati. "we are of opinion that both the election tribunal and the high court were wrong in the view they took. If the preliminary objection was not entertained and a decision reached thereupon, further proceedings taken in the election petition would mean a full-fledged trial involving examination of a large number of witnesses on behalf of the 2nd respondent in support of the numerous allegations of corrupt practices attributed by him to the appellant, his agents or others working on his behalf; examination of a large number of witnesses by or on behalf of the appellant controverting the allegations made against him; examination of witnesses in support of the recrimination submitted by the appellant against the 2nd respondent; and large number of visits by the appellant from distant places like Delhi and Bombay to ranchi resulting in not only heavy expenses and loss of time and diversion of the appellant from his public duty in the various fields of activity including those in the house of the people. It would mean unnecessary harassment and expenses for the appellant which could certainly be avoided if the preliminary objections urged by him was decided at the initial stage by the election tribunal". ( 26 ) IN dhartipakar's case, supra, their lordships further laidit down that the scheme of the act as noticed earlier would show that an election can be questioned under the statute as provided by Section 80 on the grounds as contained in Section 100 of the act. Section 83 lays down a mandatory provision by providing that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts and set forth full particulars of corrupt practice. The pleadings are regulated by Section 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 Section 100 of the act it must fail at the threshold. The pleadings are regulated by Section 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 Section 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 not 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. ( 27 ) KEEPING these principles of law in view now it has to beexamined whether the election petitioner has made out cause of action and disclosed cause of action in accordance with the requirements of law under Section 83 read with Section 100 and 123 of the act itemwise. ( 28 ) CHARGE of bribery: it has been contended by the counsel for the respondent-applicant that the first ground on which the election has been attempted to be questioned is the ground alleged to be of bribery i. e. , the one under Section 123 (1) (a ). The allegations with respect to this ground has been made only in paragraph 6 of the election petition. In paragraph 6 of the election petition, the petitioner has stated that during the election campaign the respondent was found indulging in extravagant expenditure for propaganda without properly accounting it in the day-to-day accounts book furnished to him by the returning officer. The respondent printed a calendar for the year commencing from november, 1994 ending with december, 1995, depicting his photograph on the calendar, along with the photograph of his party's national level general secretary, Sri b. s. yediyurappa, and the party symbol, lotus. The respondent printed a calendar for the year commencing from november, 1994 ending with december, 1995, depicting his photograph on the calendar, along with the photograph of his party's national level general secretary, Sri b. s. yediyurappa, and the party symbol, lotus. This calendar was printed as a propaganda material and as a gift distributed to every house in the constituency and also to the non-residential shop buildings and to the estimation of the petitioner not less than one lakh of such calendars were printed and distributed to the voters. In many cases, more than one calendar was distributed depending upon the number of voters residing in that particular house. The calendar was in the colour print over a costly glazed paper and ordinarily the cost of each calendar was not less than rs. 3/-, if more than one lakh of such calendars were printed, each calendar would cost more. After coming across the distribution of such calendar in large number and reasonably expecting that unaccounted money has been spent for the production of such calendar, the petitioner has preferred a complaint before the district returning officer, shimoga, on 19th of november, 1994, seeking suitable action in the matter. . . . The respondent also had engaged several volunteers on wages to distribute the calendars. The respondent filed the statement of election expenses before the district returning officer on 2nd january, 1955 being part-ii abstract, which was verified by the petitioner and found the expenses incurred on printing of the calendars, mentioned above and distribution of the same to each and every house, has not been included in the statement of election expenses. . . Printing and distribution of calendars which is clearly a gift, amounts to corrupt practice under Section 123 (1) (a) of the representation of the People Act, 1951. . . Printing and distribution of calendars which is clearly a gift, amounts to corrupt practice under Section 123 (1) (a) of the representation of the People Act, 1951. ( 29 ) WHATEVER allegation or charge of bribery in an election in the form of gift has been alleged in paragraph 6, apart from that the allegations of paragraph 6 refer to the charge of expenditure in violation of Section 77, the calendar no doubt has been annexed as Annexure g. The calendar Annexure g discloses to have been published by the office of the secretary of the b. j. p. in paragraph 6, it has been mentioned that the same has been published by the office of the secretary of b. j. p. , and printed at scan printers, Bangalore. The petitioner in the election petition has stated "the petitioner learns and believes it to be true that the calendar was got printed by the respondent himself and the number of copies printed, the address of the publisher, had deliberately not been mentioned to avoid accounting of expenditure incurred on the printing of the calendars. ( 30 ) A perusal of allegations of paragraph 6 per se shows that on the basis of the allegations made in paragraph 6, 2 charges were tried to be alleged one of bribery and the other of expenditure otherwise than prescribed under Section 77. For the present I am considering the allegations of paragraphs in the context of the charge of bribery with reference to Section 123 (1) (a) of the act. ( 31 ) SECTION 123 provides that the following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purpose of election. For the present I am considering the allegations of paragraphs in the context of the charge of bribery with reference to Section 123 (1) (a) of the act. ( 31 ) SECTION 123 provides that the following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purpose of election. Section 123 (1) bribery, that is to say, (a) any gift, offer or promise by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent of any gratification, to any person whomsoever, with the object, directly or indirectly of inducing, (a) a person to stand or not to stand as or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being a candidate at an election; or (b) an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election, or as a reward to, (i) a person for having so stood or not stood, or for having withdrawn or not having withdrawn his candidature; or (ii) an elector for having voted or refrained from voting". ( 32 ) I have only referred to clause (a) of Section 123 (1) of the Act, because in the petition the charge on this count have been tried to be alleged, which has to be examined whether full particulars thereon have been given. What are the material facts to be stated and whether they have been stated have to be taken in the context of the charge. Dealing with this aspect of the matter in the case of Manubhai Nandlal Amersey v Popatlal Manilal Joshi and others , it has been laid down that the material facts are those facts which if established would give the petitioner the relief asked for. The test required to be answered is whether the court could have given a direct verdict in favour of the election petitioner in case the returned candidate had not appeared to oppose the election petition on the basis of the facts pleaded in the petition. ( 33 ) NOW keeping this principle in view, we have to examine the facts of the case in the light of Section 123 (1) (a) of the act. ( 33 ) NOW keeping this principle in view, we have to examine the facts of the case in the light of Section 123 (1) (a) of the act. In view of Provisions of Section 123 (1) (a) of the Act, it has to be specifically and clearly pleaded that if the gift, or offer or promise was made and by whom, whether by the candidate or whether by his agent or whether by any other person with the consent of the candidate or of his election agent in the matter of cases where it is alleged that gift or offer had been made by any other person with the consent. It should also be specifically stated whether it was the consent of the candidate or with the consent of the election agent. Then it should also be indicated specifically what was the object, whether the object of the gift or offer was to refrain the elector to vote or not to vote at any election. The name of the person should be indicated with full particulars of the person who made the gift or offer, the promise and the name of the person to whom it has been made with full particulars required to be disclosed as per requirements of the Provisions of Section 83 (2) of the act. The statement must indicate that whether the candidate made the offer or extended gift or gratification or his election agent had done so for any other person whose name also should be indicated, as done so and in case of any other person it must be indicated with whose consent he has done so and the name of the person to whom the gift or offer was made, has also got to be indicated. The time and place should be indicated when the charges for which it was made, ( 34 ) IN the present petition with reference to this charge of gift except allegations in the petition nothing had been stated. The relevant allegation is that the calendar was printed as a propaganda material and as a gift distributed to every house in the constituency and non-residential shop buildings. . . . . . . . in many cases more than one calendar was distributed depending on the number of voters residing in that particular house. . . . The relevant allegation is that the calendar was printed as a propaganda material and as a gift distributed to every house in the constituency and non-residential shop buildings. . . . . . . . in many cases more than one calendar was distributed depending on the number of voters residing in that particular house. . . . Respondent had engaged several volunteers to distribute the calendars on wages. ( 35 ) BEYOND these allegations nothing has been stated as in the petition nor has in schedule there to, to be filed to indicate any particulars. The allegations per se are vague and not specific. Names of volunteers have not been given, who are alleged to have distributed the calendars. It is not clear who engaged and who were those persons who were engaged, the petitioner has not disclosed these particulars, to disclose cause of action, nor date and time has been given and to whom those calendars were given. Nothing has been said specifically except vague allegations which appear to have been made with an intention to have a roving enquiry and to fish out things in evidence. Such allegations do not make out any case or cause of action nor do disclose any cause of action in the election petition against the returned candidate and they suffer from deficiency of statement of material facts and particulars. If these allegations are allowed to be continued and remain subject-matter of suit and of roving enquiry, they are most likely to delay the trial of the election petition and cause undue harassment and expenditure. It is well settled that when allegations are not specific, they do not disclose the cause of action and they have got the tendency of only the delaying the trial, the allegations of such a charge deserve to be struck down and as such i hold that no cause of action on the basis of the ground of corrupt practice under Section 123 (1) (a) has been disclosed, with material facts and particulars and as such the allegations of paragraph 6 to the extent they relate to charge under Section 123 (1) (a), as they do not disclose cause of action are liable to be struck off and are being struck off and it is held that they do not call for any reply or for any issue being framed and tried. The charge of bribery is struck off, for want of disclosure of cause of action under Section 83 (1) of the act. ( 36 ) THE second count or ground on which petitioner has attempted to challenge the election is based, is with reference to Section 123 (3) of the act of 1951. While third count or ground has been attempted to be made under Section 123 (4) of the act. Section 123 (3) of the representation of the People Act, reads as under:"123 (3): appeal to vote or not to vote on the ground of religion or caste etc. , Under Section 123 (3) and false statement as to personal character of candidate returned under Section 123 (4): the appeal by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of his religion, race, caste, community or language or the use of, or appeal to religious symbols or the use of, or appeal to, national symbols, such as the national flag or the national emblem, for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate: provided that no symbol allotted under this act to a candidate shall be deemed to be a religious symbol or a national symbol for the purpose of this clause". ( 37 ) A perusal of sub-section (3) of Section 123 per se reveals that appeal to vote or to refrain from voting for any person on the ground of his religion, race, caste or community or language, under this sub-section has been described to be a corrupt practice. The latter portion of Section 123 is not very material for the present case, as no case has been alleged of use or appeal to religious symbol, nor any charge of use or appeal to national symbols etc. , Has been put in. The latter portion of Section 123 is not very material for the present case, as no case has been alleged of use or appeal to religious symbol, nor any charge of use or appeal to national symbols etc. , Has been put in. The charge against the petitioner relates to appeal to vote or to refrain from voting for any person on the ground of his religion etc, a reading of this Section per se reveals that petitioner has to state in specific terms as to who made the appeal, whether it has been made by the candidate himself or by his agent as defined in the explanation to Section 123 of the act or it has been made by any other person with the consent of the candidate or by any other person with the consent of the election agent. It means the petitioner has to satisfy the person who made the appeal and in case appeal is said to have been made by any other person than the returned candidate or his election agent the petitioner has further to allege and furnish the particulars of the consent of either the candidate or his election agent to such appeal. It has also to be indicated as to when this appeal was made and where it was made. It has also to be alleged and stated in the petition that such an appeal has been made, for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or to prejudicially affect the election of any candidate. ( 38 ) IN the Case of Kultar Singh v Mukhtiar Singh , the Supreme Court has recognised that there are several parties whose membership is either confined to or predominantly held by the members of the same communities or religions and that an appeal made by such candidates of such parties for votes may, in an indirect way be influenced by considerations of religion, race, caste, community or language. So long as the jaw recognises such parties for the purpose of election and parliamentary life, this situation cannot be avoided. ( 39 ) IN the case of Dr. So long as the jaw recognises such parties for the purpose of election and parliamentary life, this situation cannot be avoided. ( 39 ) IN the case of Dr. Das Rao Deshmukh v Kamal Kishor enanasaheb kadam , their lordships of the Supreme Court have put a note of caution and observed:"we may, however, indicate that speeches delivered in the election meeting by leaders of political parties should be appreciated dispassionately by keeping in mind the context in which such speeches were made. This court has indicated a note of caution that in election speeches appeals are made by candidates of opposing political parties often in an atmosphere surcharged with partisan feelings and emotions. Use of hyperboles or exaggerated language or adoption of metaphors and extravagance of expression in attacking one party or a candidate are very common and court should consider the real thrust of the speech without labouring to dissect one or two sentences of the speech, to decide whether the speech was really intended to generate improper passions on the score of religion, caste, community etc. In deciding whether a party or his collaborators had indulged in corrupt practice regard must be had to the substance of the matter rather than mere form or phraseology. In kultar singh's case, supra, this court has recognised that there are several parties whose membership is either confined to or predominantly held by members of some communities or religion and that an appeal made by candidates of such parties for votes may in an indirect way concavely be influenced by considerations of religion, race, community or language. So long as the law recognises such parties for the purpose of election and parliamentary life, this situation cannot be avoided. Such view has also been reiterated in later decisions of this court". ( 40 ) THEIR lordships further observed, criticism of partis antreatment meted out to the hindus by the ruling congress party or appeasement policy in favour of one community or followers of a particular religion impairing national integrity and appeal to oppose such improper and anti-national policy should not be held to be an appeal to vote only on the basis of particular religion. ( 41 ) IN the case of S. Harcharan Singh v S. Sajjan Singh and others , their lordships of the Supreme Court laid it down as under: "the paramount and basic purpose underlying Section 123 (3) of the act is the concept of secular democracy. Section 123 (3) was enacted so as to eliminate from the electoral process appeals to divisive factors such as religion, caste, etc. , Which give vent to irrational passions. It is essential that powerful emotions generated by religion should not be permitted to be exhibited during election and decision and choice of the people are not coloured in any way. Condemnation of electoral campaigns on lines of religion, caste etc. , Is necessarily implicit in the language of Section 123 (2) of the act. Consequently, the Section must be so construed as to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. Legislative history of this Section is important from this point of view. The statement of objections and reason of the amending Act, 1961 clearly mentions the object of the amendment. It was "for curbing communal and separatist tendencies in the country. It is proposed to widen the scope of the corrupt practice mentioned in clause (3) of Section 123 of 1951 act and to provide for a new corrupt practice". In order to determine whether certain activities come within the mischief of Section 123 (2), regard must be had to the substance of the matter rather than to the mere form or phraseology. The inhibition of Section 123 (3) should not be permitted to be circumvented indirectly or by circuitous or subtle devices. The court should attach importance to the effect and impact of the acts complained of and always keep in mind the paramount purpose of Section 123 (3) namely to prevent religious influence from entering the electoral field. The nature and consequence of an act may not appear on its very face but the same can be implied having regard to the language, the context, the status and position of the person issuing the statement the appearance and known religion of the candidate, the class of persons to whom the statement or act is directed, etc. The nature and consequence of an act may not appear on its very face but the same can be implied having regard to the language, the context, the status and position of the person issuing the statement the appearance and known religion of the candidate, the class of persons to whom the statement or act is directed, etc. ( 42 ) THEIR lordships further laid it down, "it would not be an appeal to religion if a candidate is put up by saying vote for him', because he is a good sikh or he is a good christian or he is a good muslim, but it would be an appeal to the religion if it is publicised that not to vote for him would be against sikh religion or against christian religion or against hindu religion or to vote for the other candidate would be an act against a particular religion. It is the total effect of such an appeal that has to be borne in mind in deciding whether there was an appeal to religion as such or not. ( 43 ) THE petitioner has to clearly set out the appeal in the terms in which it is alleged to have been made by either the candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of the candidate or with the consent of the election agent. It should also be stated and indicated in the allegations of petition as to when and on what date or during what period said appeal had been made. ( 44 ) LET us examine the present case whether in the present case necessary, complete and full statement of material facts with full particulars have been made out. Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the election petition read as under: "11. The respondent was a candidate sponsored by the bharathiya janata party as already stated above. The b. j. p. , is the political wing of the rashtriya swayam sevaka sangha, which is known as r. s. s. there are other sister organisations of r. s. s. called vishwa hindu parishad (v. h. p.), akhila bharatha vidyarthi parishad (a. b. v. p.), bharathiya mazdoor sangha (b. m. s.), bhajarangadal, etc. All of these organisations put together are called samgha parivar. All of these organisations put together are called samgha parivar. R. s. s. , the mother organisation of the b. j. p. , of which the respondent belongs, is running a kannada news daily entitled "navika" printed and published from shimoga. The editor of the said news daily is one Mr. S. Chandrakanth, who is an r. s. s. , activist and also an active worker of b. j. p. the publisher of the news daily in question is one Sri s. h. rangaswamy, who is an active full time r. s. s. worker, who has been drafted by r. s. s. itself to run the newspaper in question. Though the newspaper is not owned by r. s. s. on record, for all practical purposes, the paper belongs to the r. s. s. , which they run by proxy, through the activists sriyuths s. Chandrakanth and h. s. rangaswamy. The main aim and object of the paper is to project the r. s. s. and b. j. p. view points and work for the furtherance of the interest of the sangha parivar, which includes b. j. p. during the election campaign in question, the newspaper "navika" entirely devoted itself to further the electoral prospects of the respondents and it practically became the hand-bill published by the respondent himself. To the knowledge and belief of the respondent, the editor Sri s. Chandrakanth and also the publisher Sri s. h. rangaswamy, worked as agents of the respondent herein and published series of articles in favour of respondent and against the petitioner herein, containing statements of facts which are false and both the respondent and his agents, mentioned above, believed it to be false. The publication included the facts in relation to the personal character and conduct of the petitioner herein, the details of such publication are narrated hereafter. The news daily, "navika", in its publication dated 26th november, 1994, which was circulated on the evening of the previous day itself, published two publications, one relating to the conduct of the petitioner herein and another relating to the blessings offered from a religious institution to the respondent herein. The former one was published under the caption "swamijigalinda k. h. s. ge mukhabhanga". The former one was published under the caption "swamijigalinda k. h. s. ge mukhabhanga". In the said publication it is stated that the petitioner herein went to Sri mallikarjuna murugarajendra swamy of anandapura mutt for blessings, but the swamiji took the petitioner into task and thereby insulted him by asking why a person like him, who has helped to transfer the khatha of the mutt property in the name of some one else, required the blessings of veerashaiva swamijis. The report says the petitioner returned from the mutt after suffering the humiliation. The publication further says that the landed properties situated at bailu kammarakeri, which belongs to veerashaiva samaj and in the said land, unauthorisedly constructed huts had come up. In this respect, the matter is before the court, but nothing has been decided yet. The petitioner herein shown interest in favour of the unauthorised occupants, which can be remembered at this juncture. A copy of the publication in question appeared in the news daily in its issue dated 26th november, 1994, is herein produced as Annexure j. The entire publication is false to the knowledge of the respondent and also the agents of the respondents who are responsible for publication and they also believed it to be false. The publication was further calculated to prejudice the prospects of the petitioner. Similarly, in the same issue of the newspaper, another publication was made under the caption "rayara matadalli eshwarappanavarige shubha haraike". The publication states that on the night of the previous day, when respondent went to the raghavendraswamy temple at durgigudi to have the darshan of raghavendraswami on the eve of 'pallakki utsava', the respondent was wholeheartedly honoured. The dignitaries who were present at that time viz. , The president of the poornaprajna seva samithi and the members, along with other enlightened persons welcomed the respondent with exemplary honour and garlanded the respondent with a garland which was put on the brindhavan of raghavendraswamy. A copy of the publication is produced herein as Annexure j-1. The dignitaries who were present at that time viz. , The president of the poornaprajna seva samithi and the members, along with other enlightened persons welcomed the respondent with exemplary honour and garlanded the respondent with a garland which was put on the brindhavan of raghavendraswamy. A copy of the publication is produced herein as Annexure j-1. This publication was made by the editor and publisher of the paper, who are the activists of b. j. p. who have been acting as agents of the respondents herein and with the consent of the respondent for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of the respondent, which amounts to the corrupt practice contemplated under Section 123 (3) of the representation of the People Act, 1951, and the former publication, mentioned above, the petitioner got a legal notice issued through his counsel, Sri k. Padhmanabha udupa, to the editor, publisher and the sub-editor of the newspaper, marking the copy to Sri mallikarjuna murugarajendra mahaswamy. But there was no response from any of those persons, including the swamiji, for the legal notice. A copy of the legal notice issued by the petitioner in this regard is herein produced as Annexure k. ( 45 ) THE petitioner submits that in a kannada daily entitled "voice of shimoga", which is published from shimoga, dated 26th November 1994, the respondent got published an advertisement using the name of the religious heads, swamiji of honnalli hirekal mutt tavarekere shila mutt and Sri halaswamy viraktha mutt. In the advertisement, it is stated that all the above mentioned swamijis have appealed to vote for such candidates who is helping to protect the properties of veerashaiva mutt. In the advertisement the respondent's photo has been depicted and suggested that the respondent is the person who is always protecting the properties of veerashaiva mutt. This advertisement was published by the agent of the respondent by name Sri srinivas, who is an activist of both r. s. s. and b. j. p. though the full address of the publisher of the advertisement has not been given, the petitioner, on enquiry, found that Sri srinivas, who published the advertisement, is none other than the sub-editor of "navika" kannada daily, who had also been acting as the agent of the respondent, with the knowledge and consent of the respondent only, for furthering his electoral prospects. A copy of the advertisement appeared in the front page of its newspaper dated 26th november, 1994, is herein produced as Annexure l. In, this connection it is stated that a legal notice was got issued by the petitoner to the editor of the newspaper, through his counsel Sri k. Padmanabha udupa, on 30th november, 1994. A copy of the said legal notice is herein produced as Annexure l-1. The copy of the legal notice has also been marked to all the concerned swamijis, inviting their remarks. There was no response for the legal notice from anybody. It is submitted that on the issue of kannada daily entitled "navika" dated 25th november, 1994, a publication said to be the statement of Dr. D. m. basavaraj, president of veerashaiva samaja seva sangha, under the caption "veerashaiva samajada asthi rakshanekaryadalli neravige banda shashaka eshwarappa", had appeared. The publication was engineered by the respondent himself through his agents viz. , Sriyuths s. Chandrakanth, editor of "navika", s. h. rangaswamy, publisher of the kannada daily "navika", m. Srinivasa, who happens to be the sub-editor of the said daily, "navika", and Dr. D. m. basavaraj, who is also an activist of sangha parivar. Dr. D. m. basavaraj, who is said to be given the statement, as per the publication, happens to be the president of akhila bharathiya vidyarthi parishad (a. b. v.), shimoga district, which is a sister organisation of bharathiya janatha party, and the students wing of r. s. s. in the publication it is made clear that the respondent alone is the well-wisher of veerashaiva samaj. In the publication it is categorically stated that the respondent has helped the veerashaiva samaj in varieties of ways to protect its landed properties. A copy of the news daily "navika" dated 25th november, 1994, wherein the publication in question has appeared, is herein produced as Annexure m. In the same issue, the respondent got published an advertisement under the caption "jagratha veerashaiva yuvakara vedhikeinda mathadararalli manvai". This advertisement was got published by the respondent through his agent, one Sri h. Sathish, and another Sri t. v. shivalingaiah, who are the activists of b. j. p. a copy of this advertisement is herein produced as Annexure n. In the Annexure n, a call has been given to the voters to defeat the petitioner herein, dubbing him as the enemy of veerashaiva mutt. The contents of the advertisement is totally false and the respondent got it published through his agents to prejudice the electoral prospects of the petitionr and also for the furtherance of the prospects of the respondent in the election. This conduct of the respondent amounts to electoral corrupt practice as contemplated under Section 123 (3) of the representation of the People Act, 1951. The petitioner states that the total number of voters in 162 shimoga assembly constituency, as per the voters list used for the election in question, is 1,66,634. Out of them 1,10,020 voters have exercised their franchise in the election in question. In the 162 shimoga assembly constituency, there are about 20,000 voters belonging to veerashaiva community. Out of this 20,000, 70 per cent had exercised their franchise-to the information and belief of this petitioner. Due to the electoral corrupt practice indulged in by the respondent, as narrated above in this paragraph, the veerashaiva community voters were terribly prejudiced against the petitioner herein and they leaned towards the respondent, believing all the publications that the respondent was the only well-wisher of veerashaiva community and the petitioner is their enemy. Under these circumstances, the entire veerashaiva community voters, who had exercised their franchise, numbering not less than 14,000/- had voted in favour of the respondent herein. But for the corrupt practice indulged in by the respondent herein, as narrated above bulk of the veerashaiva community voters would have voted in favour of the petitioner herein. In that event, the petitioner would have secured the highest number of votes and declared himself elected. The electoral corrupt practice indulged in by the respondent, as narrated above in this paragraph and the immediately preceding paragraph, has materially affected the result of the election and therefore, the election of the respondent is liable to be set aside under Section 100 (l) (d) (ii) of the Representation of People Act, 1951". ( 46 ) IN these paragraphs the charge of alleged corrupt practice under Section 123 (3) and 123 (4) has been tried to be levelled. ( 46 ) IN these paragraphs the charge of alleged corrupt practice under Section 123 (3) and 123 (4) has been tried to be levelled. As per the allegations in the election petition, during the period of election campaign, kannada news daily "navika", petitioner alleges to be owned by r. s. s. , or belongs to r. s. s. though according to the petitioner's own case, the newspaper is not owned by the respondent, but for all purposes, it belongs to r. s. s. , and the editor of which have been mentioned to be one s. Chandrakanth and the publisher of which is alleged to be Sri h. s. rangaswamy, published certain articles containing a statement of facts which petitioner alleges to be false and petitioner has alleged that respondent mentioned in the petition believe it to be false. According to the petitioner's case in the petition the news daily "navika" in its publication dated 26th november, 1994, which was circulated on the evening of the previous day, published two publications and one was under the caption "swamijigalinda k. h. s. ge mukhabhanga". It has been stated by the petitioner that in the said publication it had been stated that petitioner went to Sri mallikarjuna murugarajendra swamy of anandapura mutt for blessings, but the swamiji took the petitioner into task and thereby insulted him, by asking the petitioner why a person like him who has helped to transfer the khatha of the mutt property in the name of some one else, required the blessings of veerashaiva swamijis. According to the petitioner the publication further mentioned that landed property situate in bailu kammarakeri, belonging to veerashaiva samaj, on that land unauthorisedly constructed huts had come up, and the matter regarding to that is before the court, nothing has been done till yet and it was stated that petitioner did show interest in favour of unauthorised occupants, which can be remembered at this juncture. The copy of the paper has been annexed as Annexure j. Then reference has been made to another publication Annexure j-1 in paragraph 11, which is also in the very same paper "navika". The copy of the paper has been annexed as Annexure j. Then reference has been made to another publication Annexure j-1 in paragraph 11, which is also in the very same paper "navika". It is mentioned that publication was made by the editor of paper and publisher of the paper, who are activists of b. j. p. it is stated that who have been acting as agents of respondent and that with the consent of the respondent for the furtherance of prospects of the election of respondent. In Annexure j, it has been stated in caption "rayara matadalli eshwarappanavarige shubha haraike". According to the petitioner, in the news item in Annexure j it is mentioned that when eshwarappa visited raghavendraswamy temple at durgigudi, on the occasion of'pallakki utsava', he was honoured whole heartedly. The dignitories who were present at that time-the president of the poornaprajna seva samithi and the members along with other enlightened persons treated eshwarappa with exemplary honour and garlanded him with a garland, which was put on the brindhavan of raghavendraswamy. The petitioner alleged that he had given a notice to swamiji but no reply. In paragraph 11, it has been stated that publication of Annexure j amounted to corrupt practice contemplated under Section 123 (3) and publication in Annexure j- 1amounted to electoral corrupt practice contemplated in Section 123 (4) of the act of 1951. ( 47 ) IN paragraph 12, it has been stated that the kannada daily known as "voice of shimoga" which was published from shimoga, dated 26th november, 1994, it has been stated the respondent got published the advertisement using the name of religious heads, swamiji of honnalli hirekal mutt tavarekere shila mutt and Sri halaswamy viraktha mutt. It is mentioned that the said swamiji's made appeal to the voters to vote for such candidate who is helping to protect the properties of veerashaiva mutt and the photo of respondent was also printed. The petitioner has annexed the copy of that newspaper as Annexure l. As per english translation of Annexure l, it is mentioned that the swamiji of honnalli whose name is mentioned in that appeal to vote the candidates in coming assembly elections, who would safeguard the interest of properties of veerashaiva community and who would uphold the dignity and honour of the community and who are religious and decent persons. There is another appeal from thavarekere shila mutt, it is hereby directed that all veerashaivas should vote in the coming assembly elections for candidate, who uphold the interest of veerashaiva community and who does not cause damage to the community properties and who safeguard the community interest and who is a religious person. In that the third appeal from Sri halaswamy viraktha mutt-a direction is given to all voters to vote in the forthcoming elections for a person who safeguards the interest of the property of veerashaiva community and who protect the honour of the community and who is religious. It was alleged that these advertisements were published by the name of Sri srinivas the agent of the respondent who is an activist of both r. s. s. and b. j. p. though full particulars of publisher and advertisement has not been given, it was also stated that he was the sub-editor of "navika". Petitioner's case is that a legal notice was given to him which is marked as Annexure l-1, but no response. It was further asserted in paragraph 12 that in the kannda daily "navika" on 25th november, 1994, a statement was published to be of Sri d. m. basavaraj president of veerashaiva samaj seva sangha under the caption of "veerashaiva samajada asthi rakshanekaryadalli naravige banda shashaka eshwarappa". In the petition it has been alleged that the publication was engineered by the respondent himself through his agents-sri s. Chandrakanth, editor of "navika" and s. h. rangaswamy, publisher of the kannada daily "navika" and Sri n. Srinivas who happened to be the sub-editor of said daily. Dr. D. m. basavaraj, it has been alleged is also an activist of sangha parivar, and he is mentioned to have given that statement and was the president of akhila bharathiya janatha party a sister organisation of b. j. p. in the petition it has been alleged that in this publication it has been mentioned that respondent alone was the well-wisher of veerashaiva samaj and it was categorically stated that respondent had helped veerashaiva samaj in varieties of ways. The petitioner has annexed the copy of that paper dated 25-11-1994 as Annexure m. In paragraph 12, it has further been stated that respondent got publication and advertisement under caption "jagratha veera shaiva yuvakara vedhikeinda mathadararalli manvai". The petitioner has annexed the copy of that paper dated 25-11-1994 as Annexure m. In paragraph 12, it has further been stated that respondent got publication and advertisement under caption "jagratha veera shaiva yuvakara vedhikeinda mathadararalli manvai". The petitioner has stated in the petition that this advertisement was got published by respondent through his agent one h. Sathish and another Sri t. v. shivalingaiah, who are the activists of b. j. p. and annexed the cicy of that advertisement as Annexure n. It has been mentioned in Annexure n, a call has been given to the voters to defeat the petitioner dubbing him as the enemy of veerashaiva mutt, and the contents of advertisement was false. It has been alleged that the respondent got it published through his agents to prejudice the electoral prospects of the petitioner and also for furtherance of respondents election and in the petition the petitioner has alleged that this conduct of the respondent amounted to electoral corrupt practice contemplated under Section 123 (3) of the act of 1951. The petitioner has alleged that veerashaiva community voters were terribly prejucided against the petitioner and they leaned towards the respondent believing all the publications that the respondent was the only well-wisher of veerashaiva community and petitioner was not and therefore he stated that the result of election was materially affected, as entire veerashaiva community exercising their right of franchise, numbering not less than 14,000 have voted in favour of the respondent. ( 48 ) IN these two paragraphs the allegations have been made to make out a case of corrupt practice under heads-123 (3) and 123 (4) of the act of 1951. ( 49 ) SECTION 123 (4) charge of false statement of fact as to personal character. ( 48 ) IN these two paragraphs the allegations have been made to make out a case of corrupt practice under heads-123 (3) and 123 (4) of the act of 1951. ( 49 ) SECTION 123 (4) charge of false statement of fact as to personal character. Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned here that in the matter of a case being alleged under Section 123 (4) of the act of 1951, the material facts will have to be mentioned in the statement of facts and the statement as made must be set out in the petition and it must be alleged that it refers to the personal character or conduct of the candidate and that it is false and further it is to be alleged or stated in the petition that the candidate or the person who had made the statement or the candidate with whose consent and with whose election agent's consent that statement was made; that person either believed that the statement of facts to be false or he did not believe that the statement to be true and further that it was calculated to prejudice the chances of the petitioner. In the particulars, the names of the person making the statement, the date, time and place will have to be mentioned and those material facts will show that ground of corrupt practice, complete cause of action and the function of particulars is to present as full a picture of the cause of action (see: samant's case, supra ). ( 50 ) A distinction has got to be made between personal character and political character of the candidate as well (see: Lalit Kishore Chaturvedi v Jagdish Prasad Thada and others. This test of particulars and all the facts are to be given, was followed with approval in the case of K. V. Narayana Rao and others v P. Purushotham Rao and others. This test of particulars and all the facts are to be given, was followed with approval in the case of K. V. Narayana Rao and others v P. Purushotham Rao and others. In the Case of Subhash Desai v Sharad J. Rao and others, the material requirements of Section 123 (4) of the act of 1951, which have to be alleged and to be satisfied or on the establishment of which the person may be entitled to the relief claimed, have been set out as under: (a) a statement of fact; and not of opinion; (b) which was false; i. e. , the statement is false; (c) which the returned candidate i. e. , the respondent believed to be false or did not believe to be true; (d) which relates to the personal character or conduct of the petitioner; (e) the statement was reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospect of the co-respondent. ( 51 ) KEEPING these basic principles in view it has to be examined if the cause of action is disclosed after giving the full facts, under Section 123 (3) or 123 (4) of the act of 1951. It has been stated in paragraph 11 that there is something known as "sangh parivar", which contains various organisations of r. s. s. , called vishwa hindu parishad, akhila bharatha vidhyarthi parishad, bharathiya mazdoor sangha etc. It has been stated that b. j. p. is the political wing of r. s. s. it has further been stated that the news daily "navika" is not owned by r. s. s. , on its own, but for practical purposes it belongs to r. s. s. it has been mentioned that the paper is published by shriyuths s. Chandrakanth and h. s. rangaswamy and the aim and object of the paper has been indicated to project r. s. s. and b. j. p. views and work for futherance of the interest of sangha parivar, including b. j. p. it has been stated that the editor of that paper s. Chandrakanth and publisher rangaswamy published series of articles in that paper including annexures j-1 and Annexure j. The allegation in the petition is that to the knowledge and belief of the respondent, the editor and publisher, referred to above, published statements of fact which were false and both respondent and his agents believed those statemetns to be false. It had been stated that chandrakanth and rangaswamy to the knowledge and belief of petitioner worked as respondent's agents and then the statement which has been quoted above and a copy of which publication has been annexed as Annexure j has been mentioned. ( 52 ) EXPLANATION to Section 123 of the act of 1951, defines agent and it is provided there in that the expression "agent" includes an election agent, polling agent and any person who is held to have acted as an agent in connection with election with the consent of the candidate. With reference to Annexure j, it has not been alleged in this petition that publication in Annexure j, "navika" has been done with the consent of the returned candidate i. e. , the respondent. It has also not been stated in the petition whether chandrakanth and rangaswamy were election agents or a poll agents nor it has been clarified that either of these persons acted as agents in connection of the election with the consent of the candidate, nor it appears from the allegations made in paragraph 11 that the publication was made with the consent and authority of the respondent. About the paper concerned, the petitioner's case is that it, for all purposes belongs to r. s. s. , whether that allegation is correct or false is immaterial at this stage, but if it is held to belong to an organisation. If petitioner's statement, even if it be taken correct, for a moment, it would be taken that r. s. s. , sangh parivar consists of various organisations referred to therein and the paper's object is to project r. s. s. and b. j. p. and work for furtherance of interest of sangh parivar, it only means that the aforesaid paper is doing something to project r. s. s. and b. j. p. views or to safeguard the interest of sangh parivar, including b. j. p. political parties and organisations are free to carry on their work and for their publication. Ordinarily a candidate cannot be said to be responsible, unless it is shown that the publication done the rein has been got done by or under the authority of the candidate or by his agent or it has been got done by some one or even if it has been done by some one with the consent of the election agent of the candidate. ( 53 ) SO, firstly allegation relating to Annexure j, no doubt lack in complete statement of fact, as it is also not clear whether these editor and publishers were election agents or polling agents or they were persons acting in connection with election with the consent of the candidate or his election agent. Apart from that the publication in Annexure j which is contained in the paper in kannada and english translation thereof, which has been furnished by the petitioner for the benefit of the court. It has to be looked into, whether it contains any such statement which may be said to be covered by the mischief of either Section 123 (3) or 124 (4) of the act of 1951. Annexure j, which is in kannada is being quoted herewith in roman script as under:"swamijigalinda k. h. s. ge mukhabhangha shimoga. Ittechege cong-i abhyarthi k. h. srinivasaravaru, anandapuramna Sri mallikarjuna murugharajendra mahaswamigala asheervada padeyalu hodhaga poojya swameejiyavaru avarannu tharatege thegedukonda prasangha varadiyaagide. Veerashaiva samajada assthiyannu anyarige khathe maadisikodalu mundhaguva nimage namma aasheervada yakebeku? Yendhu srinivasrannu swamigalu tharatege thegedhukondaga, srinivasarige mukhabhangavagi, avaru hageya vapassadaraagi varadhi thilisidhe. M. k. k. rastheya bylu kammara keriyalli veerashaiva samajakke seridha (thadhakhi matadha jaaga) koti roo beleya bhari niveshaavidhu, illi akrama gudi salu yeddhu ninthidhe. Yee vichara courtinallidhu, yavudhoo ithyartha vaagilla. Akrama vaasigala paravagi k. h. srinivasa aasakthi vahisiddhannu yee sandharbhadalli smarisabhudu". ( 54 ) THE english translation of Annexure j reads as under:"it is reported that congress (i) candidate went to Sri mallik arjuna murugarajendra swamy of anandapura mutt for blessings but swamiji took him to task. Swamiji asked srinivasa why you need out blessings when you have taken interest in getting veerashaiva samaja's properties khatha transferred into the name of somebody else, act of this insult, Mr. Srinivasa returned without blessings. Swamiji asked srinivasa why you need out blessings when you have taken interest in getting veerashaiva samaja's properties khatha transferred into the name of somebody else, act of this insult, Mr. Srinivasa returned without blessings. The landed properties situated at bilukammarakeri, which belongs to tadaki mata, valued at a crore of rupees wherein number of unauthorised constructions have come up and the matter is still pending in the court, k. h. srinivas took interest on behalf of the unauthorised dwellers which may be remembered at this juncture". ( 55 ) IN paragraph 11 with reference to Annexure j it has beenstated that publication mentioned above produced at Annexure j amounts to electoral corrupt practice contemplated under Section 123 (4) of the act of 1951. The allegations in the petition in this regard are further incomplete in this aspect that it has not been stated with the exactitude and the specification as to what is false in that report, whether it had been falsely alleged that respondent had gone to anandapur mutt to seek the blessings of swamiji of the mutt or whether it is false that swamiji took him to the task as mentioned in Annexure j, or whether it is false that property situate at bilukammarakeri belongs to tadaki mutt or it is false to say that he took interest as a public worker and supported unauthorised dwellers. Nothing has been specifically stated. Annexure j contains statement of facts mentioned therein. In the first part it is stated that respondent went to anandapura mutt to seek the blessings of swamiji and swamiji took him to task and put a question to him as to why the respondent required his blessings when the respondent had taken interest in getting veerashaiva samaj's property transferred to in the name of somebody else and having felt insulted the respondent returned without getting or seeking the blessings. The other part of the statement is that the landed property referred to therein belonged to the tadaki mutt and valued at crore of rupees, wherein a number of unauthorised constructions had come up and the matter relating to that property was pending in the court and further, it is mentioned that Sri k. h. srinivas took interest on behalf of unauthorised dwellers, which the publication says a fact to be noted. Apart from this for the present moment it has to be seen whether it relates to the personal character or public character. The averments in the petition are not concise and clear as to what statement of fact is false. Where it is stated that a statement of fact is false it should be specifically stated false in what respect as mentioned above and how the statement is false to indicate that the correct position according to the petitioner should have been stated. The purpose of Section 83 of the act of 1951 is that it should be indicated clearly, so that the other party may know also what case he has to meet and what is the cause of action. So in my view the allegation regarding Annexure j per se is vague and cannot be termed as concised statement. A reading of that statement per se appears to refer to the character and conduct of the candidate, not as a person simplicitor, but it relates to his conduct as a public man and relating to his public life. ( 56 ) IN the case of Ram Chand Bhatia v Hardyal, at page 723, dealing with the distinction between personal character and conduct of a candidate and his public and political character and conduct, their lordships of the Supreme Court have laid it down as under:"a distinction has been drawn between the personal character or conduct of the candidate and his public or political character and conduct. Law postulates that if a false statement is made in regard to the public or political character of the candidate it would not constitute a corrupt practice even if it is likely to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election. The public or political character of a candidate is open to public view and public criticism. If a false statement is made about the political views or his public conduct or character, the electorate would be able to judge the allegations on the merits and could not be misled by any false allegation in that behalf. It is on this theory that false statemetns of facts affecting public or political character of a candidate are not brought within the mischief of Section 123 (4 ). It is on this theory that false statemetns of facts affecting public or political character of a candidate are not brought within the mischief of Section 123 (4 ). The courts have taken the view that it is only when a person 'beneath the politician' is brought to be assaulted that sub-section (4) of Section 123 of the act is attracted. In some border line cases difficulty arises to find out whether the assault is on the person 'beneath the politician' that is on the personal character and conduct of a man or on his political opinion and conduct. It will depend on the facts of each case whether in the particular given case the assault is on the personal character and conduct of the candidate or on his political conduct". ( 57 ) IN the present case, a reading of Annexure j per seappears to refer to the conduct of the respondent which may be said to be relating to his public activity and his conduct as a public man and it does not appear to refer to his personal conduct beneath the political or public conduct. It is for the public to judge whether he was really helping the landless and the persons who had no dwelling or he was in his conduct as a public man acting otherwise. So this statement of fact in my opinion does not appear to refer to his personal conduct, instead refers to his conduct in public life i. e. , his conduct as a public person. His conduct as a public worker or as a social worker or as a political worker and as such the allegations referring to Section 123 (4) of the act of 1951 with reference to Annexure j in my opinion even taken as drafted on their face value do not make out a complete case, or complete cause of action and do not provide cause of action or a material question to be tried as an issue. In that very same paragraph 11, the report which is made in the same newspaper "navika" Annexure j-1, which is in kannada is being quoted herewith in roman script as under: rayara matadalli eshwarappanavarige shubha haaraike shimoga 25. raghavendra swamigala pallakki uthsava nadeyuva dhinavada ninne rathri guruvara shasaka k. s. eshwarappanavaru rayara dharshanakkendhu dhurgigudi rayara matakke hodaga avarige aathmeeyavada sanmanadoreyithu. In that very same paragraph 11, the report which is made in the same newspaper "navika" Annexure j-1, which is in kannada is being quoted herewith in roman script as under: rayara matadalli eshwarappanavarige shubha haaraike shimoga 25. raghavendra swamigala pallakki uthsava nadeyuva dhinavada ninne rathri guruvara shasaka k. s. eshwarappanavaru rayara dharshanakkendhu dhurgigudi rayara matakke hodaga avarige aathmeeyavada sanmanadoreyithu. Alli upasthitharidda poornapragna seva samithiya adyaksharu, sadasyaru haagu vidvamsarugalu eshwarapparannu vishwasadhinda baramaadikondu rayara brindavanada melidda haaravondanne eshwarapparige haaki shubha haraisidaru". As per english translation it reads as under: "blessings to eshwarappa at rayaramata" shimoga 25. when legislator Sri k. s. eshwarappa visited rayaramata at durgigudi on the occasion of 'pallaki utsava' he was honoured wholeheartedly. The dignitaries who were present at that time viz. , The president of poornapragna seva samithi and the members along with other enlightened persons welcomed eshwarappa with exemplary honour and garlanded him with a garland, which was put on the brundavan of raghavendr aswamy". ( 58 ) ON the basis of this Annexure j-1, it has been alleged that this publication Annexure j-1 was with the consent of the respondent for the furtherance of the prospects of election which amounts to corrupt practice contemplated under Section 123 (3) of the act of 1951. Annexure j-1 quoted herein above, does not appear to make an appeal to vote for the respondent or not to vote for the petitioner, on the ground of his religion or caste etc. It only contains a statement of fact of news as to what happened on 25th in shimoga when legislator eshwarappa visited rayaramata. ( 59 ) TO make a charge of corrupt practice it has to be stated that an appeal was made by the candidate, his election agent or with the consent of the candidate or his election agent by some one else to vote for a candidate, on the ground of his religion, caste or language or not to vote in his favour on account or on the ground of his religion or his language or caste etc. , Annexure j-1 does not contain any such appeal as per kannada version in the paper and english translation thereof provided by the petitioner. , Annexure j-1 does not contain any such appeal as per kannada version in the paper and english translation thereof provided by the petitioner. When this Annexure j-1 also does not contain any such appeal, no cause of action said to have been made out in paragraph 11 of the election petition with reference to Annexure j-l, on the ground of appeal to vote for or against a candidate, only on the ground of his religion or caste, under Section 123 (3) of the act of 1951. Even Annexure j per se does not appear to make an appeal on the ground of religion, caste or community of the candidate simplicitor. It contains only a statement of fact relating to the conduct of the respondent as a public man or as a public worker and that as a public worker he has gone to take the blessings of some one mentioned in that Annexure j-1, but that fellow put a question to him that when in the public life he was acting against the interest of veerashaiva samaj's property what right he has got to seek his blessings. This indicates to public conduct when it says k. h. srinivas, took interest on behalf of unauthorised dwellers. So this refers only to public conduct and the public conduct of the respondent affecting at this stage in relation to the temporal or worldly interest of the mutt. So in my opinion neither anenxure j nor Annexure j-1 disclose any statement of cause of action under Section 123 (3) or 123 (4) of the act of 1951. ( 60 ) IN relation to the ground under Section 123 (3) in the election petition as per para 12 it has been stated that on November 26th, 1994, in the kannada daily entitled "voice of shimoga" which is published from shimoga, respondent got published an advertisement using the name of religious heads - swamiji of honnalli hirekal mutt, tavarekere shila mutt and Sri halaswamy viraktha mutt. It is further stated in the petition that in that advertisement it is stated that the above mentioned swamijis have appealed to vote for such candidates who is helping to protect the properties of veerashaiva mutt. It is mentioned that in that advertisement the photo of respondent was depicted to suggest that respondent is the person who is always protecting the properties of veerashaiva mutt. It is mentioned that in that advertisement the photo of respondent was depicted to suggest that respondent is the person who is always protecting the properties of veerashaiva mutt. The advertisement was published by the agent of the respondent by name Sri srinivas who is an activist of both r. s. s. and b. j. p. and who was the agent of respondent and on enquiry petitioner could gather that it was Sri srinivas who published that advertisement and who was none other than the sub-editor of "navika" the kannada daily, who according to the petitioner was acting as the agent of the respondent and he had done it with the knowledge and consent of respondent only for furthering the electoral prospects of the respondent. The petitioner has annexed that advertisement that had appeared in the newspaper as Annexure l. According to the petitioner's counsel though that advertisement may not have been quoted in the exact wordings in the body of the petition but Annexure l is part of the election petition and Annexure l contains exact wordings of the advertisement and are to be read as part and parcel of the petition. Apart from the advertisement in Annexure l, the petitioner has further stated in the petition that kannada daily entitled "navika" dated 25th november, 1994, publication said to be the statement of Dr. D. m. basavaraj, president of veerashaiva samaja seva sangha, under the caption "veerashaiva samajada asthi rakshanekaryadalli neravige banda shashaka eshwarappa" was published. In the petition it has been asserted that this publication was engineered by the respondent himself through his agents sriyuths s. Chandrakanth - editor of "navika" and s. h. rangaswamy, publisher of "navika" and m. Srinivas, the sub-editor of the said daily "navika". It is also stated that Sri d. m. basavaraj is the activist of sangh parivar and happens to be the president of akhila bharathiya vidyarthi parishad. It is also stated that Sri d. m. basavaraj is the activist of sangh parivar and happens to be the president of akhila bharathiya vidyarthi parishad. The petitioner has stated that in this publication it had been made clear that respondent alone was the well-wisher of veerashaiva samaj and it was categorically stated that respondent helped veerashaiva samaj in varieties of ways to protect its landed property, the copy of "navika" daily dated 25-11-1994 has been annexed as Annexure m. It has further been stated that in that very publication there was another advertisement under the caption "jagratha veerashaiva yuvakara vedhikeinda mathadararalli manvai", it is stated that this advertisement was also got published by respondent through his agent one h. Sathish and one t. v, shivalingaiah, who are activists of b. j. p. and the copy of the advertisement has been annexed as Annexure n. It has been stated that in this voters were called upon to vote for petitioner and in this petitioner has been dubbed as enemy of veerashaiva mutt and it is alleged that these contents are false. These contents were got published by the respondent through his agents to prejudice electoral prospects of the petitioner and to further the prospects of the respondent. With reference to the above it has been stated that the above conduct amounted to electoral corrupt practice under Section 123 (3) of the act of 1951. ( 61 ) AS regards Annexure l, it is being reproduced here with in roman, from the kannada script as under; honnali hirekalmatada poojya swamiji adesha veerashaiva samajada aasthi pasthigalige rakshane needuva samajada ghanathe, gowravagalannu rakshisuva mathu dharmabhimaniyada sajjanarige mumbaruva vidhana sabha chunavaneyalli matha needi avakasha madikodabekendhu Sri sri Sri odeyar chandrashekara shivacharyaswamigalu, hirekalmata, honnali ivara aadesha poorvaka nirupane. Odeyar chandrashekara shivacharya swamigalu, hirekalmata, honnali. Thavarekere shila matadheeshara ondhu soochane veerashaiva samajadavaru, samajakke hithavannu bayasuva neravannu needuva, samajada aasthipaasthigalige dhakkeyannu tharade, hitharakshane maaduva mathu, dharmabhimaniyagiruvavarannu ee bariya vidhana sabha chunavaneyalli gellisuvanthe veerashyvarige namma aadeshapoorvakavaagi niroopisalagide. Sri renuka shivacharya swamiji, Sri shilakatadyaksharu, thavarekere, channagiri taluk. Srihalaswamy virakthamatada jayadeva swamigala niroopane veerashaiva samajada aasthi paasthigalige rakshane needuva, samajada ghanathe gowravagalannu rakshisuva matthu dharmabimaaniyada sajjanarige ee bariya vidhana sabha chunavaneyalli mathaneedabekagi niroopisalagidhe. Sri ma. No. Pra. Jayadevaswamigalu, Sri halaswamy virakthamata, channagiri. Sadhaneya saradhara, janaara vyakthi. K. s. eshwarappa, ivarige matha veedi, prakatane srinivas". Sri renuka shivacharya swamiji, Sri shilakatadyaksharu, thavarekere, channagiri taluk. Srihalaswamy virakthamatada jayadeva swamigala niroopane veerashaiva samajada aasthi paasthigalige rakshane needuva, samajada ghanathe gowravagalannu rakshisuva matthu dharmabimaaniyada sajjanarige ee bariya vidhana sabha chunavaneyalli mathaneedabekagi niroopisalagidhe. Sri ma. No. Pra. Jayadevaswamigalu, Sri halaswamy virakthamata, channagiri. Sadhaneya saradhara, janaara vyakthi. K. s. eshwarappa, ivarige matha veedi, prakatane srinivas". ( 62 ) THE english translation of the appeals Annexure l assupplied by the petitioner may be quoted here with as under: "order of rev. Swamiji of honnali hirekalmata: order of Sri sri Sri vodayar chandrashekara shivacharya mahaswami of hirekal mata, honnali, to vote for the candidates in the coming assembly election who would safeguard the interests of the properties of veerashaiva community, who uphold the dignity and honour of the community and who are religious and decent persons. Vodayar chandrashekara shivacharya swamiji, hirekal mata, honnali. Direction of thavarekere shilamatadeesha: it is hereby directed that all veerashaivas should vote in the coming assembly election for a candidate who supports the interests of the veerashaiva community, who does not cause any damage to community's prosperities, who safeguards the community interest and who is religious person. Sri renuka shivacharya swamiji Sri shilamatadhaksha, tavarekere-587213, chennagiri taluk. Direction of Sri jayadevaswamy of Sri halswamy virakthamatha: a direction is given to all voters to vote in the forthcoming assembly election for a person who safeguards the interest of the properties of veerashaiva community, who protect the honour and dignity of the community and who is a religious person. Sri ma. n. pra. Jayadevaswamigalu Sri halaswamy viraktha mata, chennagiri. Photo of Sri eshwarappa: achiever and popular man. Lotus (b. j. p. symbol) vote for k. s. eshwarappa, published by srinivas. ( 63 ) ALL the three appeals as mentioned above are to vote for the candidates in the assembly elections who would safeguard the interest and the properties of veerashaiva community, who uphold the dignity and honour of the community and who are religious upright persons. Lotus (b. j. p. symbol) vote for k. s. eshwarappa, published by srinivas. ( 63 ) ALL the three appeals as mentioned above are to vote for the candidates in the assembly elections who would safeguard the interest and the properties of veerashaiva community, who uphold the dignity and honour of the community and who are religious upright persons. ( 64 ) IN the Case of Ram Dial v Sant Lal and others , Hon'ble b. p. sinha, delivering judgment on behalf of the court had been pleased to observe and laid down as under:"there cannot be the least doubt that a religious leader has the right freely to express his opinion on the comparative merits of the contesting candidates and to canvass for such of them as he considers worthy of the confidence of the electors. In other words, the religious leader has a right to exercise his influence in favour of any particular candidate by voting for him and by canvassing votes of others for him. He has a right to express his opinion on the individual merits of the candidates. Such a course of conduct on his part, will only be a use of his great influence amongst a particular Section of the voters in the constituency; but it will amount to an abuse of his great influence if the words he uses in a document, or utters in his speeches, leave no choice to the persons addressed by him, in the exercise of their electoral rights. If the religious head had said that he preferred the appellant to the other candidate, because, in his opinion, he was more worthy of the confidence of the electors for certain reasons good, bad or indifferent, and addressed words to the effect to persons who were amenable to his influence, he would be within his rights, and his influence, however great, could not be said to have been misused". ( 65 ) IN the Case of Shubnath Deogam v Ram Narain Prasad and others , their lordships of the Supreme Court laid it down that it would be an appeal on the ground of religion if the act in question has the effect of giving the impression that it would be irreligious not to vote for a particular party or person. ( 66 ) IN the case of s. Harcharan singh, supra, this court has referred the earlier case with approval and thereafter had been pleased to observe "whether a particular appeal made by a candidate falls within the mischief of Section 123 (3) of the Act, the courts should not be astute to read in the words used in the appeal anything more than what can be attributed to them on their fair and reasonable construction". ( 67 ) WHEN i examine these appeals in the light of the seprinciples, that is the appeals contained in Annexure-L , these appeals do not appear to be one covered by Section 123 (3) of the act of 1951. This appears to be exercise of right by those swamijis, which they undoubtedly have to express their opinion and to appeal to voters to vote for a candidate who should suffice the above tests. The test mentioned is who, they think, would safeguard the interest and properties of veerashaiva community and uphold the dignity and honour of that community and who does not cause damage to the community's properties and who is a religious person or to say a decent upright person. These appeals do not appear and cannot be said to leave no choice for exercise of electoral rights to the persons to whom it is addressed. Appeals prima facie does not refer to any particular candidate, but printing of the photo of the respondent in the paper may give an impression that it was in support of the respondent, but there is nothing in the appeals which may give an impression to the voters that it would be irreligious not to vote for a particular candidate or not to vote for the respondent. The purpose of Section 123 of the act of 1951 is only to curb communal and separatist tendencies and to prevent such irreligious influence from entering electoral field which has tendency to encourage separatist tendencies. The appeal contained in Annexure-L does not appear as such to come within the four corners of prohibition under Section 123 of the act of 1951. The appeal contained in Annexure-L does not appear as such to come within the four corners of prohibition under Section 123 of the act of 1951. The appeal is simply an appeal to vote for a candidate who is upright and is worthy of being elected, keeping in view the best interest of that community as well, but the choice was finally being left to the electors to select the candidate, keeping these basic principles or ideals in view which every religious leader has got to urge while expressing his views about the fitness of a candidate. ( 68 ) NOW, i propose to deal with annexure-m which is being reproduced here with in roman from the kannada script as published in the paper as under: veerashaiva samajada aasthi rakshane karyadalli neravige bandha shasaka eshwarappa veerashaiva samajada seva sanghada adyaksha Dr. D. m. basavaraj helike: shimoga. sthaliya pathrikegalalli veerashyva samajakke seridha thadaki matadha jaaga (bylakammarakeri jaaga) da bagge mathu samajada raajakiya niluvina bagge kelavu swayam ghoshitha mukhandarugalindha helikegalu prakatavaguthiddu idarindha samaja bhandavaralli gondhalaverpattide. Eee gondalavannu nivarisuva saluvaagi Sri basaveshwara veerashyva samaja seva sanghada adhyakshanadha naanu kelakandha spastaneyannu nanna karthavya vendhu bhavisineeduthiddene. Spastaneya saramsha. thadaki matadha jaagadalli anadhikruthavagi vaasisuthhiruvavarige kanoonu bahiravagi sowlabhya kalpisi kodalu maanya k. h. srinivasravaru prayathnisiddaru. Eee bagge samghandapatta adhikarigala mele 24-7-1994 randhu theervaothadavannu thandhiddaru. Eee sandharbhadalli samajada pramukharu b. j. p. shasakarugaladha Sri k. s. eshwarappa mathu d. h. shankarmurthy avarugalannu samparkisidaru. Avareer varu namma alalannu aalisi melina kaanoonu bahira prayathnakke thadeyoddalu prayathnisidaru. Aaga adhikarigalu aadalitha pakshadavara othadavannu vivarisi thamma asahayakatheyannu vyakthapadisidhaga shasaka eshwarappanavaru ugra prathibhatane nadesi kelasa nillisuvalli yashsviyadharu. Thariku: 25-7-1994 randhu eshwarappanavaru sambhandapatta adhikarige baredha prathibhatana pathrada nakalu eegalu namma sanghada kacheriyallide. Thadaki matada jaagavu veerashaiva samajakke seridhagiddu, sadari jaagadalli anadhikruthavagi kattiruva manegalannu theravu maadisuva maanveeya drushtiya yqjanegalannu namma aadalitha mandali eegaagale yojisidhe. Aadare samajada hithakkintha swahithavanne yochisuva kelavaru inthaha sookshma vishayagalannu balasikollathha anavashyaka, asamarchaneeya helikegalannu needuthhiddare. Idhu sarvatha khandaneeya. Innu rajakeeyada bagge heluvadaadare, veershaiva prathanidhika samstheyada Sri basaveshwara veerashaiva samaja sanghataneya adhikruthavaaniyada akhila bharathiya veerashaiva mahasabhadavaru chunavane bagge yaava tharahada aadeshavannu neediruvudilla. Veerashaiva samajada yella pakshagalige seriruva janariddare. Avaravara niluve avarige. Heegiddagyu kelavaru, adharallu rajakiya labhakkagi pakshdinda pakshakke jigiyutha, thave samajada mukhandarendu yelikondu veerashaiva sabeyannu karediddare. Sumaru 30 savira veerashaiva mathadaarariruva kshethradalli 50-60 sankeya janarannu serisi raajakeeya niluvannu nirnayisalu horatiddare. Aa sabheyalli yavude nirnayavaagaddiddaroo, yeneno sullu helikegalannu neediddare. Idu samajada ghanathe gowravagalannu galige thooridhanthagide. Veerashaiva samajada yella pakshagalige seriruva janariddare. Avaravara niluve avarige. Heegiddagyu kelavaru, adharallu rajakiya labhakkagi pakshdinda pakshakke jigiyutha, thave samajada mukhandarendu yelikondu veerashaiva sabeyannu karediddare. Sumaru 30 savira veerashaiva mathadaarariruva kshethradalli 50-60 sankeya janarannu serisi raajakeeya niluvannu nirnayisalu horatiddare. Aa sabheyalli yavude nirnayavaagaddiddaroo, yeneno sullu helikegalannu neediddare. Idu samajada ghanathe gowravagalannu galige thooridhanthagide. Rajya mattadalli, zillamattadalli nagaramattadalli veerashaivarige aagiruva anyayavannu gamanadallittukondu, samajada aasthigalige rakshane needuvavarigee samaja bhandavaru matha chalayisabekendhu Sri basaveshwara veerashaiva samaja seva sanghada adyaksharaada Dr. D. m. basavarajaravaru thamma spastaneya koneyalli vinanthisiddare". ( 69 ) AS per english translation supplied by the petitioner, the statement reads thus:"eshwarappa, legislator, who has come to the rescue of safeguarding the veerashaiva samaja property: statement of Dr. B. m. basavaraj, president of veerashaiva samaja seva sangha: shimoga. as come controvertial statements were issued by some self-declared political leaders with regard to the property of thadaki mata at bilakammarakeri, i feel it, as president of Sri basaveshwara veerashaiva samaja seva sangha, to clarify as follows: gist of clarification: Sri k. h, srinivasa has brought pressure on the officials on 24-7-1994 with regard to the property of thadakimata to give facilities for the unauthorised occupants. At this juncture, we contacted b. j. p. legislator Sri k. s. eshwarappa and d. h. shankaramurthy, who after hearing us protested to the officials who in turn informed that they are helpless as they have been pressurised by the ruling party persons. But eshwarappa made a very strong protest and was successful in getting the works stopped. The copy of the letter dated 25-7-1994 written by eshwarappa, addressed to the officials, even now is available at our office. Thadakimata property belongs to veerashaiva samaja and the samaja has already made some humanitarian proposals with regard to eviction of unauthorised persons. But some persons who are self-centered are unnecessarily interfering in this matter by issuing statements against the interest of the community. This statement of such persons is condemnable. There is no direction from all India veerashaiva mahasabha with regard to election and the people of veerashaiva community are there in all political parties. But some persons who are self-centered are unnecessarily interfering in this matter by issuing statements against the interest of the community. This statement of such persons is condemnable. There is no direction from all India veerashaiva mahasabha with regard to election and the people of veerashaiva community are there in all political parties. Inspite of the fact that some persons who change parties frequently have called a meeting of the veerashaiva sabha in which some 50 to 60 persons attended meeting though the strength of veerashaiva community is about 30,000 in the constituency and though no resolution was passed, these persons are giving statements which bring down the credibility of the samaja. Dr. D. m. basavaraj, president, Sri basaveshwara veerashaiva seva samaja sangha has appealed to the voters at the end of his press statement to vote for persons who safeguard the interest at the state level, at the district level and city level of veerashaivas and also the properties of veerashaiva community". ( 70 ) A perusal of this statement per se does not appear to be making an appeal on the ground of religion of either of the candidates. A perusal of the statement appears to be clarification issued by the person mentioned as Dr. B. m. basavaraj with reference to the property of thadaki mutt at bilakammarakeri and a perusal of that statement reveals that it is in relation to the public conduct of the petitioner i. e. , the opposite party election petitioner and it contains therein that there is a complaint and grievance against the alleged act of the petitioner in bringing pressure on the officials on 24-7-1994 with regard to property of thadaki mutt and compelled the officers to give facility to the unauthorised occupants of that property. This statement further mentions that b. j. p. legislator eshwarappa and shankaramurthy were contacted and they heard them and lodged protest to the officials against their giving facility to the unauthorised occupants of the property of thadaki mutt and they disclosed that there was pressure on them from the ruling party president to help those occupants and the officers were as such helpless but later on, on strong protest being made the works were got stopped. It has been stated that thadaki mutt property belongs to veerashaiva samaj seva sangh and that it had made some humanitarian proposals with reference to the matter of eviction of unauthorised persons. But the grievance has been expressed against some self-interested persons unnecessarily interfering with the matter by issuing statements which were against the interest of the mutt properties and the mutt. So whatever appeals has been made in the earlier paragraphs indicates with reference to the grievance arising from the alleged public life character and conduct of the petitioner who is alleged to have helped unauthorised occupants. Advertisement to annexure-m, further appears to make a clarification that veerashaiva mahasabha had issued no directions in regard to election as to which of the particular candidate vote should be given and at the end the appeal appears to have been made to vote for the persons and the candidates who can safeguard the interest at the state level, at the district level and at the city level of veerashaivas and also the properties belonging to veerashaiva community. A reading of this appeal does not appear to me to be giving a clinch nor does it amount to an appeal to vote for a particular candidate on the ground of his religion or not to vote on the ground of his religion, nor it appears to be one amounting to create the communal frenzy nor does it amount to create the communal or castist disharmony. It only appears to be appealed that the interest of veerashaiva community should also be kept in view while casting the votes in favour of a candidate, as to who will be beneficial to protect the interests of the particular community concerned, the monitory interest or temporal interest of that community and who will help the society in protecting the properties from intruders and trespassers. Such an appeal in my opinion does not appear to be one amounting to corrupt practice either under Section 123 (3) of the act or 123 (4) of the act of 1951 because it neither relates to the personal conduct of the election petitioner nor does it amount to an appeal on the ground of religion. Such an appeal in my opinion does not appear to be one amounting to corrupt practice either under Section 123 (3) of the act or 123 (4) of the act of 1951 because it neither relates to the personal conduct of the election petitioner nor does it amount to an appeal on the ground of religion. Every society in the democracy is entitled to take into consideration its temporal interest and to consider who is a fit candidate to protest its temporal interest and improve its condition and as such in my opinion this does not appear to be an appeal which may be termed as an appeal to vote or not to vote on the ground of religion or on the ground of religion of the community. ( 71 ) AS regards annexure-n, it is being reproduced here with in roman, from the kannada script as under: jaagrutha veerashaiva yuvakara vedhikeyindha mathadhararalli manavi vidhanasabha chunavanegalu nadeyuthhiruva yee sandharbhadalli veerashaiva samajadha kelavu mukhadarenisikhondiruva vyakthigalu congress abhyarthi Sri k. h. srinivasavarige matha yachisi prachara nadesuthhiruvudhu khandhubandhide. Yeechina dhinagalalli Sri srinivasravaru shimoghada m. k. k. , rastheyalliruva veerashaiva samajadha odethanadalliruva jaagadalli nelesiruva akrama nivasigalige (high court thadeyagne iddaroo) khayam patta kodisalu matthu nagareeka sowlabhyagalannu odhagisalu sambhandapatta adhikarigala mele othhada thandhiddu innoo hasirage idhe. Kelavu varshagala hindhe yalavattiyalli Sri bekkina-kalmatakke seridha shaleyondhara kattadavannu Sri srinivasaru manthriyagiddagga sarkaradha vashapadisikkondhadannoo innoo yaaroo marethilla. Inthaha sandbar bhaviruvaaga idee samajadha asthigalannu kabalisalu yochisi kelasa madutthiruva Sri srinivasrantha abyarthigalannu bembalisiruva vyakthigala kruthyavannu naavu khandisuthheve. Neravagi samajadha hithakke dhakkeyannuntumaduthhiruva vyakthiya kaige adhikaravannu needidhare namma samaja aste alia, idee nagarakke haniyaadeethu. Idannu namma bhandhavaru arthamadikondu Sri k. h. srinivasranthaha vyakthigalige mumbaruva chunavaneyalli solisi thakka paata kalisabekhu. Avarannu bembalisuva namma samajadha vyakthigalannu sooktha samayadalli prashnisuvanthagabekendhu jagrutha veerashaiva yuvakara vedike samaja bhandavaranmi vinanthisuthhadhe. H. Sateesh, t. v. shivalingaiah, pradhana karyadharshi. Adhyaksharu. The english translation of annexure-n is quoted herewith as under: an appeal to the voters by jagratha veerashaiva youth forum: ( 72 ) AT this juncture of assembly elections, it is seen some leaders of veerashaiva community are campaigning in favour of congress (i) candidate, Sri k. h. srinivasa. It is still fresh in the memories of the community people that Sri k. h. srinivas inspite of a high court stay order worked against the interest of veerashaiva samaja when he tried to get civic amenities for the unauthorised occupants of veerashaiva samaja property at m. k. k. road, shimoga. It is still fresh in the memories of the community people that Sri k. h. srinivas inspite of a high court stay order worked against the interest of veerashaiva samaja when he tried to get civic amenities for the unauthorised occupants of veerashaiva samaja property at m. k. k. road, shimoga. Some years ago, when Sri srinivas was a minister it is pertinent to note that government acquired the property of Sri bekkinakal mata at yelavatti village. None has forgotten this incident. Under such circumstances, supporting Sri srinivas who is working against the interest of the veerashaiva samaja property, on the advise of some members of our community, it would ruin the interest of our community as well as may cause ruin to the entire city. Taking into consideration these facts, our community people should defeat Sri k. h. srinivas, and also question the activities of these self declared leaders of our community who are working for Sri k. h. srinivasa. H. Sathish, t. v. shivalingaiah, general secretary. President". ( 73 ) ANNEXURE-N appears to be an appeal to the voters and it only gives an analys is of the public activities of the respondent which the persons making the appeal considered to be against the interest of veerashaiva samaj. Those have been attempted to be highlighted as false or corrupt. For the time being it is not material and in that context the persons making an appeal consider the respondent to be unworthy of being elected or being voted. This appeal cannot be termed to be an appeal either on the ground of religion, because the candidate belongs to a particular religion or community he should not be voted instead the persons issuing the appeal after having referred to the earlier public conduct of the respondent, expressed their opinion that to vote for respondent would not be in the interest of community and it may cause ruin of the community because the persons making the appeal appear to be considering his past activity have been against the temporal interest and property of veerashaiva samaj. From this appeal also it cannot be read and implied that it was an appeal either on the ground of religion nor can it be said to be covered by Section 123 (4), because it only related to the petitioner's public conduct. From this appeal also it cannot be read and implied that it was an appeal either on the ground of religion nor can it be said to be covered by Section 123 (4), because it only related to the petitioner's public conduct. When these appeals per se disclose that they did not furnish anything or any cause of action covered by Section 123 (3) or 123 (4) of the act of 1951 then in that case the allegations contained in paragraphs 11 and 12 read with annexures-j, l, m and n can be said not to disclose any cause of action for the filing of the petition, apart from what had been mentioned earlier. ( 74 ) THE fourth count was the ground on the basis of which the election petition has been filed or I may say the third ground which has been projected by the election petitioner against the returned candidate is that the expenditure that was incurred by the respondent or authorised by the respondent or his election agent was more than what has been disclosed in his return of expenditure and it has been alleged that it amounts to corrupt practice under Section 123 (6) of the act of 1951 read with Section 77 of the act. It has been stated that respondent has not maintained true and correct account of election expenses and he has submitted the statement to the concerned authorities. It has also been stated that the respondent has spent huge amount of money in excess of the limits prescribed by the authorities as election expenses and as such contravened the Provisions of Section 77 of the act of 1951. The petitioner's case in this regard is that during the election campaign period the respondent was found indulging in extravagant expenditure for propaganda, without properly accounting it in the day-to-day accounts book furnished to him by the returning officer. It was asserted that the respondent printed calendars for the year commencing from november, 1994 to december, 1995, depicting his photograph along with the photo of lotus i. e. , the party symbol and that of the general secretary of the party was also printed. The petitioner stated that to the petitioner's estimation not less than one lakh such calendars were printed and distributed to voters. Petitioner further mention that according to him each calendar did not cost less than rs. 3/ -. The petitioner stated that to the petitioner's estimation not less than one lakh such calendars were printed and distributed to voters. Petitioner further mention that according to him each calendar did not cost less than rs. 3/ -. ( 75 ) HE has further stated that he made complaint to the election authorities vide: Annexure-D and in reply to the notice issued by the district returning officer, the respondent stated that he had purchased only 5,000 calendars from his party head office and for which the bill was yet to be received and after the receipt of the bill, amount would be paid and then it would be accounted in the election expenditure. The petitioner further mentioned that the calendar was published by the office of the secretary, bharathiya janata party, Karnataka and printed at scan printers, Bangalore. In the calendar number of copies printed were not mentioned. The petitioner further stated that he learns and believes that to be true that calendars were got printed by respondent himself. Here I may mention that the petition does not disclose the source from which the petitioner did learn that calendar was got printed by the respondent himself, and that the petition lacks in disclosure of the particulars as to from whom he learnt and from what sources that he did learn that the calendar was got printed by the respondent himself, nor it is disclosed from what source he has learnt that one lakh calendars were printed. The allegation is vague. ( 76 ) THE petitioner has further alleged that respondent had also engaged several volunteers on wages to distribute calendars and he has stated that in the return of statement of expenditure, expenses incurred on the printing of calendars and in connection with the distribution of those calendars by way of payment to the volunteers has not been included in the statement. One thing I may mention that neither the names of volunteers nor quantum or how many volunteers were engaged on wages has been indicated in the petition nor it has been specifically averred in this petition that what sums were paid to each volunteer per day, which according to the petitioner has not been mentioned in the statement of expenditure. The petition is lacking in material particulars in this regard. The petition is lacking in material particulars in this regard. In paragraph 7, it has been stated that respondent got several wall posters printed and got them pasted throughout the constituency and in addition to the wall posters the respondent got prepared one thousand banners and flags. The petitioner has further stated that respondent has stated that he has spent a sum of rs. 5,733/- on the printing of 5,000 posters and 250 flags and 1,000 banners and he has shown expenditure of rs. 5,750/ -. According to the petitioner's case the cost of smallest banner would be rs. 40/- in the market and on the basis of minimum cost, the cost of 1,000 banners would come to rs. 40,000/- and the petitioner alleged that respondent has understated the expenditure of printing of wall posters and preparation of banners and flags. According to the petitioner the cost of smallest flag would come to rs. 5/- per flag and for 250/- flags the petitioner has stated that respondent has spent a sum of rs. 1,250/ -. Petitioner's case is that respondent has shown total expenditure of rs. 5,750/- for preparing one thousand banners and 250 flags and that was gross under-valuation. Again here it is stated that in the matter of pasting of the posters and in the matter of distribution of hand bills the respondent, according to the petitioner could have incurred an expenditure in making payments, but those expenses incurred on pasting of posters and distribution of hand bills has been avoided. It has further been averred in paragraph 8 that during the election campaign two vip's from outside karnataka, were invited namely the former chief minister of Uttar Pradesh Sri kalyan singh and one of the national level general secretary of b. j. p. , and public meetings were organised for them. Petitioner's case is that respondent in connection with meeting on 18-11-1994, spent not less than 30,000/- on any standard, but in his accounts and statement he has shown an expenditure of rs. 236. 50 paise. It is mentioned in connection with the arrangements of meeting. According to the petitioner's case with reference to meeting dated 21-11-1994, as elaborate arrangements were made the cost of arrangements is estimated to be rs. 20,000/ -. 236. 50 paise. It is mentioned in connection with the arrangements of meeting. According to the petitioner's case with reference to meeting dated 21-11-1994, as elaborate arrangements were made the cost of arrangements is estimated to be rs. 20,000/ -. It is mentioned that the meeting was conducted by local b. j. p. heads and the election expenses of this meeting has not been shown. In paragraph 9 of the election petition it has been stated that during election campaign period respondent got prepared a video cassette on his achievements under the title "sadhane/santhrupthi" in which he himself has figured and advertised all his achievements. Video cassette contained 13 shots and it will run into half an hour. Petitioner's case is that respondent has spent rs. 15,000/- in getting the video cassette televised through cable t. v. network of shimoga, by paying televising charges. The petitioner's case is that this expenditure was not shown in the statement of election expenses submitted by respondent to district returning officer. The cassette is alleged to be in the police custody. The petitioner in paragraph 10 of the petition has stated that respondent had submitted his statement of account of election expenses to the district returning officer, as per Annexure-H and in that it is shown that he has spent a total sum of rs. 81,415. 57 paise without adding to it the expenses incurred for printing and distribution of calendars which would be a sum of rs. 3,00,000/ -. The petitioner's case is there has been under-estarnation. In paragraph 5 it has been stated that as per latest amendment the maximum expenditure for No. 162-shimoga assembly constituency is prescribed to be 1,35,000/ -. ( 77 ) BEFORE i proceed further it would be just and proper on my part to refer to the Provisions of Section 123 (6) and to Section 77 of the act of 1951, in order to examine what are the necessary particulars required to be given and whether they have been stated or given therein. ( 78 ) IT may be mentioned here that by 1975 amendment insection 77 (1), the expression 'the date on which he has been nominated' was substituted in place of the expression 'date of publication of notification calling for the election'. ( 79 ) SECTION 123 (6) of the act of 1951 reads as under: "section 123 (6 ). ( 78 ) IT may be mentioned here that by 1975 amendment insection 77 (1), the expression 'the date on which he has been nominated' was substituted in place of the expression 'date of publication of notification calling for the election'. ( 79 ) SECTION 123 (6) of the act of 1951 reads as under: "section 123 (6 ). Incurring or authorising of expenditure in contravention of Section 77". Section 77 of the act of 1951 reads as under:"77. Account of election expenses and maximum thereof. (1) every candidate at an election shall, either by himself or by his election agent, keep a separate and correct account of all expenditure in connection with the election incurred or authorised by him or by his election agent between the date on which he has been nominated and the date of declaration of the result thereof, both dates inclusive. Explanation 1. notwithstanding any judgment, order or decision of any court to the contrary, any expenditure incurred or authorised in connection with the election of a candidate by a political party or by any other association or body of persons or by any individual (other than the candidate or his election agent) shall not be deemed to be, and shall not ever be deemed to have been, expenditure in connection with the election incurred or authorised by the candidate or by his election agent for the purposes of this sub-section: provided that nothing contained in this explanation shall effect, (a) any judgment, order or decision of the Supreme Court whereby the election of a candidate to the house of the people or to the legislative assembly of a state has been declared void or set aside before the commencement of the representation of the people (Amendment) ordinance, 1974 (13 of 1974); (b) any judgment, order or decision of a high court whereby the election of any such candidate has been declared void or set aside before the commencement of the said ordinance appeal has been preferred to the Supreme Court against such judgment, order or decision of the high court before such commence- ment and the period of limitation for filing such ap- peal has expired before such commencement. Explanation 2. for the purpose of explanation 1, "political party" shall have the same meaning as in the election symbols (reservation and allotment) Order, 1968, as for the time being in force. Explanation 3. Explanation 2. for the purpose of explanation 1, "political party" shall have the same meaning as in the election symbols (reservation and allotment) Order, 1968, as for the time being in force. Explanation 3. for the removal of doubt, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred in respect of any arrangements made, facilities provided or any other act or thing done by any person in the service of the government and belonging to any of the classes mentioned in clause (7) of Section 123 in the discharge or purported discharge of his official duty as mentioned in the proviso to that clause shall not be deemed to be expenditure in connection with the election incurred or authorised by a candidate or by his election agent for the purposes of this sub-section. (2) the account shall contain such particulars, as may be prescribed. (3) the total of the said expenditure shall not exceed such amount as may be prescribed", ( 80 ) A reading of Section 77 of the act of 1951 per se disclose and fastens a liability on the elected candidate that he shall either himself or by his election agent keep a separate and correct account of all expenditure in connection with the election incurred by him or authorised by him or his election agent, between the date on which he has been nominated and the date of declaration of the result thereof, both inclusive, i. e. , the two dates are material in this regard i. e. , the date on which the candidate has been nominated and the date of declaration of result. According to sub-section (1) of Section 77 of the Act, the candidate is required to keep the correct account of expenditure incurred or authorised by him or his agent in connection with the election during this period i. e. , from the date of nomination and the date of declaration of result and any expenditure incurred earlier to the date of nomination may not be relevant. Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 77 of the act further provides that any expenditure incurred or authorised in connection with the election of a candidate by a political party or by any other association or by body of persons or by individuals other than the candidate or his election agent, shall not be deemed and shall not ever be deemed to have been, expenditure in connection with election incurred or authorised by the candidate or by his election agent for the purpose of Section 77 (1) of the act of 1951. ( 81 ) SUB-SECTION (2) provides that account shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed and sub-section (3) of Section 77 of the act of 1951 provides that total of the said expenditure shall not exceed such amount as may be prescribed. ( 82 ) IN the Case of Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat v Datta Jiraghobaji Meghe , their lordships of the Supreme Court have been pleased to lay down the law under Section 77 of the act as under:"section 77 of the act provides that "every candidate at an election shall either by himself or by his election agent keep a separate and correct account of all expenditure in connection with the election incurred or authorised by him or by his election agent between the date of publication of the notification calling the election and the date of declaration of the result thereof, both days inclusive. Explanation 1 which was introduced by the Amendment Act of 1974 declares that any expenditure incurred or authorised in connection with the election of a candidate by a political party or by any other association or body of persons or by any individual (other than the candidate or his election agent) shall not be deemed to be and shall not ever be deemed to have been, expenditure in connection with the election incurred or authorised by the candidate or by his election agent for the purposes of sub-section (1) of Section 77. Sub-section (2) of Section 77 provides that the account of election expenses shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed and sub-section (3) lays down that the total of the said expenditure shall not exceed such amount as may be prescribed. Sub-section (2) of Section 77 provides that the account of election expenses shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed and sub-section (3) lays down that the total of the said expenditure shall not exceed such amount as may be prescribed. Vide Section 78 of the act account of election expenses is required to be lodged with district election officer by every candidate at an election within thirty days from the date of election of the returned candidate". their lordships further laid it down in that same decision as under: ''under Section 123 (6) of the Act, the incurring or authorising of expenditure in contravention of Section 77 of the act amounts to commission of a corrupt practice. However every contravention of Section 77 of the act does not fall within the mischief of Section 123 (6) of the act. Neither the violation of sub-section (1) of Section 77 nor the violation of sub-section (2) of Section 77 amounts to the commission of the corrupt practice under Section 123 (6) of the act. However, Section 77 (3) mandates that the total of the expenditure in connection with the election shall not exceed the prescribed limit and therefore the Provisions of Section 123 (6) of the act are related only to Section 77 (3) of the act. If a candidate incurs or authorises expenditure in excess of the prescribed limits, he commits the corrupt practice under Section 123 (6) of the act and his election is liable to be set aside and he also incurs the disqualification of being debarred from contesting the next election. From a plain reading of sections 123 (6) and 77 including explanation 1 to Section 77 of the Act, it is therefore clear that in order to be a corrupt practice, the excessive expenditure must be incurred or authorised by a candidate or his election agent. An expenditure incurred by a third person, which is not authorised by the candidate or his election is not a corrupt practice". ( 83 ) IT is well established principle of law as laid down by the Supreme Court that in order to constitute a corrupt practice as contemplated by Section 77 of the Act, it is necessary to plead requisite facts showing authorisation or undertaking of reimbursement by the candidate or his election agent. ( 83 ) IT is well established principle of law as laid down by the Supreme Court that in order to constitute a corrupt practice as contemplated by Section 77 of the Act, it is necessary to plead requisite facts showing authorisation or undertaking of reimbursement by the candidate or his election agent. 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. (see: dhartipakar's case, supra ). ( 84 ) IT is also to be noted 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 would provide no cause of action. ( 85 ) KEEPING this in view, let me examine the allegation sregarding this counter charge. As regards item of publication of calendar Annexure-G , in this context, the allegations in para 6 of the petitioner per se appears to be conflicting. Firstly in paragraph 6 it has been stated that respondent printed the calendar for the year commencing from November 1994 ending with December 1995, depicting his photograph on the calendar and this calendar was printed as a propaganda material. In that very paragraph at page 7, it has been stated that the calendar shows that the same was published by the office of the secretary, bharathiya janata party and printed by scan printers, Bangalore. Thereafter in that very page, it has been stated petitioner made efforts to identify scan printers which is said to have printed the calendar, but could not trace the address of such printing press. Then thereafter again the petitioner states that the petitioner learns and believes it to be true that calendar was got printed by the respondent himself I may mention it here that one thing is clear that the calendar Annexure-G was, as per allegations published by the office of the secretary of b. j. p. , and printed by scan printers. Then thereafter again the petitioner states that the petitioner learns and believes it to be true that calendar was got printed by the respondent himself I may mention it here that one thing is clear that the calendar Annexure-G was, as per allegations published by the office of the secretary of b. j. p. , and printed by scan printers. If the calendar was printed by a political party, then in view of explanation 1 to Section 77 of the Act, any expenditure incurred by the political party in the publishing of that calendar and getting that printed from scan printing press, Bangalore cannot be deemed to have been expenditure in connection with the election incurred and authorised by the candidate or his agent for the purpose of sub-section (6) of Section 123 of the act. The petitioner's version in this regard is that petitioner learns and believes it to be true that calendar was got printed by respondent himself. This statement in paragraph 6 itself counters the statement that respondent printed the calendar. Secondly this allegation in paragraph 6 is very vague, because the souce of knowledge or learning that calendar was got printed by respondent has not been disclosed. It is settled principle of law as laid down in the case of gajanan krishnaji bapat's case, supra, that election petitioner is also obliged to disclose his source of information in respect of commission of corrupt practice while levelling the charge of corrupt practice. In the election petition the petitioner has not disclosed the source from which he got information or learnt that the calendar was got printed by respondent himself. Apart from that how much calendars were printed and distributed, a guess work nas been done in the petition, not a specific figure has been mentioned and the cost of printing has also been mentioned as a guess work. In this paragraph an effort has been made to level the charge that petitioner incurred an expenditure of not less than 3 lakhs rupees, but it lacks in material statement of facts and particulars, as firstly it is not very clear and specific that respondent printed or got printed it. The allegation is not also very specific that from what source he did learn that calendar was got printed by the respondent. Further there is guess work and opinion and not specific clear-cut statement of fact. The allegation is not also very specific that from what source he did learn that calendar was got printed by the respondent. Further there is guess work and opinion and not specific clear-cut statement of fact. A guess work cannot be allowed to take the place of statement or precise statement of fact. ( 86 ) IN paragraph 7 of the election petition the allegation of the petitioner is that as per statement of election expenses, respondent got printed 5000 posters and 250 flags and 1000 banners and in the statement he is shown to have incurred expenditure of rs. 5,733/ -. The petitioner states that this is a case of gross under-valuation. He has stated that cost of smallest banner would be ordinarily at rs. 40a in the market and so he has given as estimation that for 1,000 banners Rs. 40,000/- should have been spent and with reference to the flags the petitioner has stated that smallest flag would cost Rs. 5/- and the minimum cost for preparing 250 flags, the respondent had to spend a sum of Rs. 1,250/ -. As per language of Section 77 read with Section 123 (6) of the Act, it has to be shown and alleged with specification and preciseness, actually what expenditure has been incurred or has been authorised by the candidate or his election agent and not what would have been the value of things. Keeping this principle in view, along with Section 77 of the Act, it appears that petitioner has to state with exactitude indicating the source of information on the basis of which he has to state what is the actual sum incurred as expenditure towards election by the candidate or the actual sum authorised by the candidate of the election agent to be incurred. ( 87 ) TESTING on this line, i find that allegations of paragraph 7 do not disclose the actual sum spent or incurred towards expenditure on these items. The allegations of this paragraph lack in material particulars as such, in addition to the non-disclosure of source of information. As mentioned earlier, the charges in election petition are of criminal nature and therefore, the charges must be specific and very clear and indicating the source of information. On the basis of which charge is levelled. The allegations of paragraph 7 per se appear to be lacking in this regard. As mentioned earlier, the charges in election petition are of criminal nature and therefore, the charges must be specific and very clear and indicating the source of information. On the basis of which charge is levelled. The allegations of paragraph 7 per se appear to be lacking in this regard. Further in paragraph 8 again the particulars are lacking and are vague. When it has been stated that in connection with the two meetings in which two v. i. ps were invited, the respondent has spent in respect of meeting dated 18-11-1994, not less than Rs. 30,000/- on any standard. But in statement of accounts, expenses of Rs. 236. 50 paise has been shown with reference to the meeting dated 18th november, 1994 and with respect to the meeting dated 21st november, 1994, which is alleged to have been arranged at municipal grounds, shimoga, the petitioner's allegation is that there were elaborate arrangements made spending an estimated amount of Rs. 20,000/ -. The basis of estimation and the basis of this figure as to amounts spent has not been disclosed. The allegations lack exactitude and are vague, not very specific and are based on guess work, which lead to nothing but a fishing and roving inquiry. ( 88 ) IN paragraph 9 of the election petition the charge has been levelled that respondent during the election campaign period got prepared the video cassette of his achievements, and the video cassette contained 13 shots to run into half an hour and in the preparation of such video cassette the petitioner's case is that respondent has spent Rs. 15,000/- and thereafter got the video cassette televised. According to the petitioner this entire expenditure has not been accounted in the election expenses. In the petition at para 9 it has not been indicated or shown as to on what date the video cassette was prepared. Whether the video cassette was prepared or got prepared before the date of petitioner's filing nomination i. e. , 27th october, 1994, or after that date. The allegation that during the election campaign period the video cassette was prepared by respondent or was got prepared by the respondent does not satisfy the requirements of sections 77 (1) and 83 (1) and of Section 123 (6) of the act. The allegation that during the election campaign period the video cassette was prepared by respondent or was got prepared by the respondent does not satisfy the requirements of sections 77 (1) and 83 (1) and of Section 123 (6) of the act. Incurring of expenditure or authorising of expenditure earlier to the date of nomination in connection with the preparation of video cassette or other material cannot be termed as expenditure in violation of Section 77 of the Act, in view of use of Section 77 (1) of the Act, expression "between the date on which he has been nominated and the date or declaration of result thereof, both inclusive". It means the expenditure incurred in connection with the election, either by the candidate or by his election agent or authorised by him or his election agent earlier to the date of his nomination will not amount to a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 (6) read with Section 77 of the act. When i so observe, i find support from the observations made by their lordships of the Supreme Court in the cases of dhartipakar, supra, and gajanan krishnaji bapat, supra, referred to above, vide. , Paragraph 21 thereof. When that is so, it has been necessary and obligatory on the petitioner to indicate in the petition on what date the expenditure was incurred in the preparation of that video cassette. The expression election campaign period, used in the petition is value, may be even prior to nomination. In the petition names or number of volunteers have not been indicated, about whom it is being alleged that respondent got engaged several volunteers on wages to distribute the calendars and also incurred expenditure in getting the posters pasted. Who were those volunteers, how may were the volunteers is not indicated. Merely because volunteers worked, it cannot be said that they were employed and paid by the candidate or the election agent. Who were those volunteers, how may were the volunteers is not indicated. Merely because volunteers worked, it cannot be said that they were employed and paid by the candidate or the election agent. ( 89 ) WHEN i so observe, i find support from the observations of their lordships of the Supreme Court in the Case of Rananjaya Singh v Baijnath Singh and others , which decision has been followed with approval and following that case their lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of dhartipakar, observed as under:"in rananjaya singh's case, supra, this court pointed out that expenses must be incurred or authorised by the candidate or his election agent. In that case the manager, the assistant manager, 20 ziladars and their peons were alleged to have worked for the election of the returned candidate. This court held that the employment of extra persons and the incurring or authorising of extra expenditure was not by the candidate or his election agent. It was further pointed out that persons who volunteer to work cannot be said to be employed or paid by the candidate or his election agent". apart from that it has not been shown or indicated how much was each volunteer paid and who were the volunteers and as to whom it was paid, the material particulars in this regard are also lacking. In paragraph 10 of the petition, it has been stated that as per statement of returns of election expenditure-h, the respondent has spent a sum of Rs. 81,415. 57 paise without adding to it the expenses incurred in printing and distribution of calendars, which would be a sum of rs, 3 lakhs. The expenses incurred on preparation and televising of video cassette has also not been indicated in the statement. ( 90 ) I have mentioned earlier, the allegations which have beenmade in this connection are vague and not very specific and they lack in exactitude and material particulars, as has been mentioned above. The expenses incurred on preparation and televising of video cassette has also not been indicated in the statement. ( 90 ) I have mentioned earlier, the allegations which have beenmade in this connection are vague and not very specific and they lack in exactitude and material particulars, as has been mentioned above. The petitioner has mentioned one thing in paragraph 6 that when he had made a complaint on 19th november, 1994, pursuant to that complaint in question and notice issued by district returning officer, shimoga to the respondent, respondent gave a reply in which he is said to have stated that he has purchased only 5,000 calendars from his party head office, the bill has yet to be received and after the receipt of the bill, the amount would be paid and accounted in the election expenditure. Learned counsel for the respondent invited my attention to Annexure-F , i. e. , the reply of the respondent. In Annexure-F it has been stated "as informed in your notice, we have purchased 5,000 copies from our party head office at Bangalore and we have sought for cash receipt and the same will be accounted in the election expenses account. Therefore, I have not violated election code of conduct. If this allegation per se is taken on its face value that petitioner purchased 5,000 copies of the calendar and if it be taken for a moment that the price of the calendar was not mentioned in the statement of accounts Annexure-H , then the cost of election expenditure will not go beyond the limits prescribed. On own statement of the petitioner, as per paragraph 5 the maximum limit of expenditure prescribed was Rs. 1,35,000/- and if to the figure Rs. 81,415. 57 paise a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as the cost of 5,000 calendars at the rate stated by the petitioner for the moment be taken, it will come to Rs. 15,000/- is added, the total expenditure will come to Rs. 96,415. 57 paise. So the limit of expenditure is not going to increase or it is not going beyond the maximum limit prescribed. Apart from that from the perusal of Annexure-H , it appears along with the banners, and flag Rs. 5,000/- is mentioned and it must be referring to the cost of the calendars, which has been shown as Rs. 57 paise. So the limit of expenditure is not going to increase or it is not going beyond the maximum limit prescribed. Apart from that from the perusal of Annexure-H , it appears along with the banners, and flag Rs. 5,000/- is mentioned and it must be referring to the cost of the calendars, which has been shown as Rs. 5,733/- and this figure has been shown in the account of expenditure submitted. ( 91 ) AS the law is very clear as to what is corrupt practice under Section 77 read with Section 123 (6) of the Act, expenditure beyond the prescribed limit. Neither violation of sub-section (1) of Section 77, nor violation of sub-section (2) of Section 77 of the act amounts to commission of corrupt practice under Section 123 (6) of the act of 1951, as laid down in gajanan krishnaji bapat's case, material page 363. It is only violation of mandate under Section 77 (3) of the act that the total expenditure in connection with election shall not exceed the prescribed limit and therefore, Provisions of Section 123 (6) of the act are limited, but only to Section 77 (3) of the act. Here if for a moment it would be taken as a case of non-disclosure of that figure, though prima facie it does not appear to be so, no cause of action is made out in this case on the basis of charge levelled or admitted to be levelled under Section 123 (6) of the act of 1951 read with Section 77 (3) of the act thereof. ( 92 ) A reading of Section 80 of the act of 1951, as mention edearlier clearly reveals that no election can be called in question, except by a petition presented in accordance with the Provisions in this Act, which includes in itself Section 83 also and which require that election petition is to contain concised statement of material facts on which petitioner relies and he has to set forth full particulars of the corrupt practice, including full statement regarding the name of the parties alleged to have committed corrupt practice and the date of commission of such corrupt practice, means a complete cause of action for a petition has to be disclosed with exactitude, clarify and with all particulars in the context of Provisions of sections 100 and 123 of the Act, where the cases alleged to be of corrupt practice committed either by the returned candidate or by his election agent or by any other person with the consent of the returned candidate or his election agent. ( 93 ) AS discussed earlier, the pleadings being vague lacking in exactitude and material statement of facts and the particulars, the pleadings of the petition do not furnish and disclose the cause of action under any head. The allegations in each paragraph as mentioned above, firstly on count of lacking particulars do not make out a case or cause of action under that count with preciseness and with clarity and apart from that the annexures referred to namely annexures-j, j-1, l, m and n, also do not disclose a cause of action for filing the petition, within the four corners of Section 123 (3) and 123 (4), as has been discussed above. The allegations in the election petition that the publications were engineered by the respondent or that they were got published by the respondent through his agent are vague in nature, at the most those allegations do not show that the respondent issued those appeals contained in annexures-j, j-1, m or n. The allegation only indicates some connivance. Connivance is distinct from consent and if any allegation of consent appears to be in perennial. Apart from that as mentioned earlier that these publications in annexures-j, j-1, l, m and n also do not disclose any particulars of cause of action within Section 123 (3) and 123 (4) of the act. Connivance is distinct from consent and if any allegation of consent appears to be in perennial. Apart from that as mentioned earlier that these publications in annexures-j, j-1, l, m and n also do not disclose any particulars of cause of action within Section 123 (3) and 123 (4) of the act. As has also been mentioned earlier that the charges of bribery under Section 123 (1) (a) of the act and appeal to religion under Section 123 (3) and as relation to making and publishing of false statement as to personal character under Section 123 (4) of the Act, lack in material statement of facts and particulars and the petition in respect to charge under Section 123 (6) read with Section 77 of the Act, as has been discussed earlier also lacks in material particulars as well as it does not furnish a complete statement of facts making out in pleadings any cause of action for election petition being filed. As the election petition does not make out a cause of action within the four corners of Section 100 (1) (b) or 100 (1) (d) read with sections 83 and 123 of the act of 1951. As per Section 80 of the Act, an election of a candidate cannot be challenged except in accordance with the petition drawn, prepared and filed or presented in accordance with the Provisions of the Act, the course of challenging the election by any other mode, than the one prescribed under the Act, is barred and the petition challenging the election if it is not drawn and presented in accordance with the requirements of sections 80 and 83 of the Act, the petition is liable to be held to be not maintainable on its face itself and cannot be tried, as when the law provides a right to do certain thing and prescribes the mode therefor, the other modes of doing that act are closed and barred. ( 94 ) THE petition challenging election, not presented in accordance with the requirements of the Act, can be held to be a non-maintainable petition, liable to be rejected under order 7, Rule 11, c. p. c. , as well as to be dismissed under Section 80 of the act. ( 94 ) THE petition challenging election, not presented in accordance with the requirements of the Act, can be held to be a non-maintainable petition, liable to be rejected under order 7, Rule 11, c. p. c. , as well as to be dismissed under Section 80 of the act. The present petition as such, as considered above, in the earlier part of this judgment in my opinion, deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable on its face under sections 80 and 83 of the representation of the People Act, 1951, read with order 7, Rule 11, c. p. c. , is liable to be rejected/dismissed and is hereby dismissed and la. No. Ii is thus allowed with costs assessed at Rs. 1,100/ -. this election petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 81 of the representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the validity of the election of respondent held on 26-11-1994 in respect of 162, shimoga assembly constituency to the Karnataka legislative assembly general elections and praying that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to set aside the election of the respondent to the Karnataka legislative assembly, the result of which was declared on 9th december, 1994 from 162, shimoga assembly constituency duly holding that the respondent is guilty of electoral corrupt practice under Section 100 (1) (b) and Section 100 (1) (d) (ii) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, with cost and such other consequential orders the law demands under the circumstances of the case to secure the ends of justice. This election petition coming on for orders on i. a. No. Ii between 25-8-1995 and 6-9-1995 and finally on 27-11-1995 for striking out the pleadings in the election petition insofar as they relate to the following alleged corrupt practices, (a) para 6 insofar as it relates to the allegation of gift of calendars said to be a corrupt practice under Section 123 (1) (a) of the representation of the People Act, 1951; (b) averments in paragraphs 11 and 12 insofar as they relates to the alleged publication produced as annexures-j, said to be a corrupt practice under Section 126 (4) of the representation of the People Act, 1951; (c) averments in paras 11 and 12 insofar as they relate to the alleged publication annexures-j1, l, m and n claimed as corrupt practices under Section 123 (3) of the representation of the People Act, 1951; (d) averments in paras 6 to 10 relating to election expenses alleging corrupt practice under Section 123 (6) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and consequently reject the election petition and order costs and such other and further reliefs, in the presence of Sri a. k. subbaiah, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri b. l. acharya, Advocate for respondent and for the reasons stated in the judgment while allowing la. No. Ii, it is ordered and decreed that the election petition be and the same is hereby dismissed under order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as under sections 80 and 83 of the representation of the People Act, 1951. and it is further ordered and decreed that the petitioner aforesaid do pay to the respondent aforesaid the sum of Rs. 1,105/- (rupees one thousand one hundred and five only) towards costs. Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 27th day of november, 1995. Election Petition No. 11 of 1995 Memorandum of costs incurred in this election Petition By the Petitioner By the Respondent Rs. Ps. Rs. Ps. 1. Court fee on plaint - - 2. Court fee on application - 2. 00 3. Court fee on power _ 3. 00 4. Advocate fee (Fee Certificate not filed) - - 5. Costs awarded by Court - 1,100. 00 Total Rs. 1,105. 00 --- *** --- .