THAKUR, J. ( 1 ) IN the last genera! election to the Parliament from No. 15, chamarajanagar Parliamentary Constituency, Sri V. Srinivasa Prasad- respondent No. 2 in this Petition was declared elected havjng secured 3,11,547 votes as against 2,95,401 polled by the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner has in the present Election Petition sought a declaration to the effect that the election of the 2nd respondent is void besides a further declaration that he stands duly elected from the said Constituency. The petitioner's case entirely rests on the alleged improper reception and rejection of votes within the meaning of Section 100 (d) (iii) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which has, according to him, meterially affected the result of the election. Broadly speaking, the allegations made in the Election petition suggest that the result of the election was affected materially by reason cf rejection of a large number of votes that had been cost in favour of the petitioner besides improper mixing of votes polled in favour of petitioner with those polled by the 2nd respondent. The Petition also contains allegations of irregularities in the counting of votes besides suggesting that the rejection of the votes by the returning officers of the Assembly Constituencies was not permissible. I shall presently refer to the contents of the Petition in detail. Suffice it to say that the Petition does not make any allegation regarding the commission of any corrupt practice by either the successful candidate or any other candidate for that matter. ( 2 ) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, as many as ten issues were framed by this Court by order dated 1 1th of August 2000. Issues No. 1 to 5, which were purely legal in nature and in regard to which no evidence was offered by the parties were treated as preliminary issues. They read as under- " 1) Whether the Returning officer R- 1, is liable to be deleted from the array of Respondents as stated in I. A. No. 1, filed by the second Respondent? 2) Whether the averments made in paras 2 to 22 of the election Petition, are unnecessary, vexatious and frivolous hence liable to be struck off? 3) Whether the Election Petition does not disclose any cause of action ahd is therefore liable to be rejected? 2) Whether the averments made in paras 2 to 22 of the election Petition, are unnecessary, vexatious and frivolous hence liable to be struck off? 3) Whether the Election Petition does not disclose any cause of action ahd is therefore liable to be rejected? 4) Whether the Election Petition has not been verified properly and is liable to be dismnissed on that ground 5) Whether the Election Petitioner has not complied with section 8 1 (3) of the Representation of People Act? If so, whether the petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground?" issue N0. ( 1) it was argued by Mr. Shantaraju, learned Counsel for Respondent no. 2, that the Returning Officer is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the present proceedings. He contended that Section 82 of the Representation of People Act, 195 1 was an exhaustive provision and did not permit any person other than those referred to therein as party respondent to an Election Petition. The Returning Officer- respondent No. 1 was therefore improperly joined as a party and deserved to be deleted from the array of respondents. Reliance in support was placed by the learned Counsel upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in JYOT 1 BASU AND OTHERS vs. DEB 1 ghosal AND OTHERS , B. SUNDARA RAMI REDDY vs election COMMISSION OF INDIA AND OTHERS and SUBHAN khan vs. J. H. PATEL AND OTHERS ( 3 ) IN Jyothi Basu's case (supra), the Apex Court declared that no one may be joined as a party to an Election Petition otherwise than as provided by Sections 82 and 86 (4) of the Act. The Court held that besides Sections 82 and 86 (4) of the Act, there is no other provision dealing with the question as to who may be joined as respondents and that while a candidate not already a respondent may seek his addition and may be joined as a respondent, any other person cannot do so even if allegations of corrupt practice are made against him. The contest of an election petition, declared the court, was confined to the candidates at the election excluding all others. The Court observed: "the ring is closed to all except the petitioner and the candidates at the election. If such is the design of the statute, how can the notion of 'proper parties' enter the picture at all? The contest of an election petition, declared the court, was confined to the candidates at the election excluding all others. The Court observed: "the ring is closed to all except the petitioner and the candidates at the election. If such is the design of the statute, how can the notion of 'proper parties' enter the picture at all? we think that the concept 6f 'proper parties' is and must remain alien to an election dispute under the Representation of the People act, 195 1. Only those may be joined as respondents to an election petition who are mentioned in Section 82 and Section 86 (4) and no others. However, desirable and expedient it may appear to be none else shall be joined as respondents. " ( 4 ) EVEN in Sundara Rami Reddy's case relied upon by Mr. Shantharaju, the Court reiterated that the concept of a 'proper party' is must remain alien under the Representation of the People Act, 195 1. The Court held:- "the concept of 'proper party' is and must remain alien to an election dispute under the Representation of the People Act, 195 1. Only those may be joined as respondents to an election petition who are mentioned in Section 82 and Section 86 (4) and no others. However desirable and expedient it may appear to be, none else shall be joined as respondents. " ( 5 ) TO the same effect is the decision of this Court in Subhan Khan's case, in which Krishnamoorthy, J. , while examining a similar question expressed doubts about P. A. SHREEDHAR SHANAI vs. CHIEF electoral OFFICER stating the correct legal position after the declaration of the law by the Supreme Court in B Sundara Rama reddy's case (supra ). I am conscious of a recent decision of a Single bench of this Court in K. S. ESHWARAPPA vs H. M. CHANDRA- shekarappa AND OTHERS in which the Court appears to have relied upon the decision in P. A. Shreedhra Shanai's case while holding that a petition in which a party other than those permitted by Section 82 of the Act is impleaded cannot be dismissed on the ground of misjoinder only. That decision cannot in my opinion be understood to be laying dawn a proposition contrary to what has been held by the Supreme Court in Jyoti Basu and Sundara Rama reddy's cases (supra ). That decision cannot in my opinion be understood to be laying dawn a proposition contrary to what has been held by the Supreme Court in Jyoti Basu and Sundara Rama reddy's cases (supra ). The ratio of the decision simply is that while failure to implead a party who is a necessary party under Section 82 may be fatal, the improper joining of a party outside the requirement of that provision cannot entail dismissal of the petition. The argument of Mr. Gangi Reddy that the Returning officer for the election was a proper party having regard to the nature of the allegations made in regard to the counting of votes must accordingly fail and is hereby rejected. ISSUES NOS. 2 AND 3 it was contended by Mr. Shantaraju, Counsel appearing for the elected candidate that the Election Petition does not disclose any cause of action and was therefore liable to be rejected in terms of order 7 Rule 1 1 of the C. P. C. . He submitted that Section 83 of the representation of the People Act requires every Election Petition to contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner placed reliance. The averments made in the present petition did not, argued the learned Counsel, satisfy the said mandatory requirement and therefore failed to disclose any cause of action rendering the Petition liable to be rejected at the threshold. ( 6 ) ON behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Gangireddy argued that the averments made in the Petition were sufficient to disclose a full cause of action and that the particulars that may have been initially deficient may be allowed to be incorporated by way of an amendment, for which purpose the petitioner has made a separate application. He argued that the contents of the Petition sufficiently satisfied the requirement of law which could not be thrown out at the threshold. ( 7 ) SECTION 83 of the Representation of the People Act inter alia provides that an Election Petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts, on which the petitioner relies. Judicial pronouncements as to what constitutes "material facts" and what is the effect of non furnishing of such facts are a legion. Reference to all those decisions is in my opinion unnecessary for the legal position is authoritatively settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court to which I shall briefly refer. Judicial pronouncements as to what constitutes "material facts" and what is the effect of non furnishing of such facts are a legion. Reference to all those decisions is in my opinion unnecessary for the legal position is authoritatively settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court to which I shall briefly refer. ( 8 ) IN SAMANT N. BALAKRISHNA ETC. vs. GEORGE FERNANDEZ and OTHERS ETC. , the Supreme Court held that Section 83 of the Act was mandatory and that a Petition, which did not contain material facts was no election petition at all. The Court observed that material facts constitute the cause of action for the filing of the petition and that omission of a single material fact would amount to an incomplete cause of action. The following passage from the decision is apposite:-"section 83 is mandatory and requires the election petition to contain first a concise statement of material facts and then requires the fullest possible particulars. The word 'material' shows that the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action must be stated. Omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and the statement of claim becomes bad. The function of particulars is to present as full a picture of the cause of action with such further information in detail as to make the opposite party understand the cause he will have to meet. There may be some overlapping between material facts and particulars but the two are quite distinct xxx xxx xxx xxx. An. election petition without the material facts relating to a corrupt practice is no election petition at all. A petition which merely cites the sections cannot be said to disclose a cause of action where the allegation is the making of a false statement. " ( 9 ) IN JITENDRA BAHADUR SINGH vs KRISHNA BEHAR 1 AND others, the Court was dealing with the question of scrutiny of ballot papers in terms of Section 92 of the Act read with Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules. " ( 9 ) IN JITENDRA BAHADUR SINGH vs KRISHNA BEHAR 1 AND others, the Court was dealing with the question of scrutiny of ballot papers in terms of Section 92 of the Act read with Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules. The significance of material facts was noticed by the Court in the following words:- "the basic requirements to be satisfied before an election tribunal can permit the inspection of ballot papers, are ( 1) that the petition for setting aside the election must contain an adequate statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies in support of his case and (2) the tribunal must be prima facie satisfied that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete justice between the parties, inspection of the ballot papers is necessary. The material facts required to be stated are those facts which can be considered as materials supporting the allegations made. " ( 10 ) THE Court further held that if the election petitioner gave some figures regarding rejection of valid votes and acceptance of invalid votes, the same must not be considered as an adequate statement of facts if the petitioner has not. disclosed in the Petition the basis on which he arrived at those figures. The Court observed- "in other words they must be such facts as to afford a basis for the allegations made in the petition, If an election petitioner in his election petition gives some figures as to the rejection of valid votes and acceptance of invalid votes, the same must not be considered as an adequate statement of material facts when the petitioner has not disclosed in the Petition the basis on which he arrived at those figures. His bald assertion that he got those figures from the counting agents of the unsuccessful candidate cannot afford the necessary basis". ( 11 ) IN BHELIRAM BHALAIK vs JAI BEHARl LAL KHACHI AND another the Court held that a Court trying the election petition would be justified in ordering a recount or permitting inspection of the ballot papers only where all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality in counting are founded are pleaded adequately in the election petition. Mere allegations that the petitioner suspects or believes that there has been improper reception, refusal or rejection of votes or there have been irregularities in the counting of ballot papers will not be sufficient to support an order of recounting. ( 12 ) TO the same effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in bhabhi vs SHEO GOVIND AND OTHERS, in which the Court held tnat the allegations made against the elected candidate must be clear and specific and must be supported by adequate statement of material facts. In UDHAV SINGH vs MADHAV RAO SCINDIA 10, the court declared that failure to plead even a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and incomplete allegations of such a charge are liable to be struck off under Order VI Rule 16 of the c. P. C. If the petition is based solely on allegations which suffer from lack of material facts, the same is liable to be summarily rejected for want of a cause of action. ( 13 ) IN AZHAR HUSSAIN vs RAJIV GANDHI, one of the questions that arose for considerations was whether the petition could be rejected on the ground that it did not contain material facts keeping in view the fact that Section 86 of the Act, which authorises dismissal of an election petition in certain contingencies did not permit dismissal on the ground of violation of Section 83. Repelling the argument that such a Petition could not be dismisbed under Section 86 of the act, the Court observed. "an election petition can be and must be dismissed under the provisions of Civil P. C. if the mandatory requirements enjoined by Section 83 to incorporate the material facts and particulars 'elating to alleged corrupt practice in the election petition are not complied with. The Code of Civil Procedure applies to the trial of an election petition by virtue of Section 87 of the Act. Since C. P. C. is applicable, the Court trying the election petition can act in exercise of the powers of the Code including Order 6 Rule 16 and Order 7 Rule 1 1 (a ). Therefore that Section 83 does not find a place in Section 86 of the Act which authorises dismissal of election petitions in certain contingencies does not mean that powers under the C. P. C cannot be exercised. Therefore that Section 83 does not find a place in Section 86 of the Act which authorises dismissal of election petitions in certain contingencies does not mean that powers under the C. P. C cannot be exercised. An election petition can be summarily dismissed if it does not furnish cause of action in exercise of the powers under the civil PC and it is settled law that the omission of a single mate rial 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. " (emphasis supplied) ( 14 ) IN BHAGWATI PRASAD DIXIT GHORAWALA vs RAJIV gandhi , the Court while reiterating the legal position stated in the earlier decisions, declared that election pleadings have to be precise, specific and unambiguous and if the election petition does not disclose the cause of action, it should be dismissed in limine. The court observed that if the allegations contained in the Petition do not set out the grounds of challenge as contemplated under Section 100 of the Act and if the allegations do not conform to the requirement of Sections 8 1 and 83 of the Act, the pleadings are liable to be struck off and the election petition liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 1 1 of the C. P. C. To the same effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in. V. NARAYANASWAMY vs C. P. THIRUNAVUKKARASU , where the court distinguished 'material facts' from 'material particulars' in the following words:- ; "there is difference between "material facts" and "material particulars. " While the failure to plead material facts is fatal to the election petition the absence of material particulars can be cured at a later stage by an appropriate amendment. "material facts" mean the entire bundle of facts, which would constitute a complete cause of action and these must be concisely stated in the election petition, ie. , Clause (a) of sub-section ( 1) of Section 83. Then under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 83 the election petition musy contain full particulars of any corrupt. , practice. These particulars are obviously different from material , facts on which the petition is founded. , Clause (a) of sub-section ( 1) of Section 83. Then under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 83 the election petition musy contain full particulars of any corrupt. , practice. These particulars are obviously different from material , facts on which the petition is founded. " ( 15 ) THE decision of the Supreme Court in MAHENDRA PAL vs RAM dass MALANGER AND OTHERS, reiterates the legal position in similar words. To sum up:- (1) the provisions of Section 83 of the Representation of People Act are mandatory. Omission of the petitioner to state material facts as required by the said prevision is fatal to the maintainability of the Petition. (2) 'material Facts' are different from the 'material Particulars'. While the former constitute the cause of action to maintain the Petition, the latter can be provided subject to the condition that the material facts in regard to me ground set up in the election petition have been stated. (3) The omission to state even a single material fact constitutes an incomplete cause of action justifying dismissal/rejection of the Petition at the threshold under order VII Rule 1 1 of the C. P. C. (4) If the ground urged in the petition relates to improper reception or rejection of votes, it is not enough to give some figures regarding the said votes. Any such figures cannot be deemed to be an adequate statement of material facts when the petitioner has not disclosed in the petition the basis on which he had arrived at those figures. (5) Bald assertions that the petitioner got the figures from his counting agents or the agents of other unsuccessful candidates cannot afford a legal basis. He must state as to who are the agents and what were the serial numbers of the ballot papers on which they had advanced their objection at the time of their improper reception or rejection by the Returning Officer. It is time now to revert back to the facts of the case in hand to determine whether the Petition satisfies the requirements of Section 83 of the Act and sets out the material facts in support of the allegations made and the grounds urged. ( 16 ) IN para 1 of the petition certain general facts are stated, which are not in dispute. ( 16 ) IN para 1 of the petition certain general facts are stated, which are not in dispute. Para 2 of the petition inter alia states that the returning Officer has rejected more than 30,000 votes cast in favour of the petitioner on the recommendation of the Returning Officers of the Assembly Constituencies, without assigning proper reasons and without showing the ballot papers to the "election Agents" of the petitioner. In paras 3 and 6 of the petition, the petitioner has alleged that maximum votes were rejected in Koliegai, Chamrajnagar, santhemaranahalli and Gundlupet Constituencies, in which large scale irregularities were committed in the counting of votes. In para 4 of the petition the petitioner has given particulars of the Assistant returning Officers and alleged that although, some of the "election agents" of the petitioner had raised objections, the same were not considered while rejecting the votes. In para 5 of the petition, the petitioner has alleged that signature of the Returning Officer are not affixed on the Ballot Papers as was required under Rule 56 of the conduct of Election Rules and Section 100 (1) (d) (iii) and (iv) of r. P. Act. It is also alleged that the Votes cast in favour of the petitioner were mixed with the bundle of the votes of the second Respondent. Para 7 of the petition relates to one ballot paper found in the School premises where Polling Station No. 27, of Heggawadipura in santhemaranahalli village, constituency was established. It is alleged that a case has been registered by the Police and the matter is under investigation. Para 8, refers to Representation made by the petitioner to the Returning Officer, pointing-out irregularities in the rejection of votes and mixing of votes polled in his favour with those cast in favour of the Respondent, which representation It is alleged was rejected mechanically. Paras 9 to 18 give particulars of the votes cast in favour of the petitioner and the second Respondent in different rounds of counting. Para 19 alleges mixing of votes cast in favour of the petitioner with those polled in favour of the second respondent and states that in each bundle of 25 ballot papers, there were at least 4 to 5 votes cast in favour of the petitioner that were mixed with those cast in favour of the second Respondent. Para 19 alleges mixing of votes cast in favour of the petitioner with those polled in favour of the second respondent and states that in each bundle of 25 ballot papers, there were at least 4 to 5 votes cast in favour of the petitioner that were mixed with those cast in favour of the second Respondent. In para 20, the petitioner has alleged that Counting Agents on Counting tables Nos. 6, 10 and 14,-of Kollegal Constituency, Counting Tables nos. 2, 3 and 4 of Santhemaranahalli Assembly Constituency and counting Tables 1, 3 and 5 of Chamrajnagar Constituency had raised objections regarding improper mixing of votes and the rejection of the votes which were not considered by the Returning officer. In para 2 1, the petitioner alleges improper mixing of votes in regard to tables Nos. 1, 6, 10 and 12 of Chamrajnagar Constituency, Tables 1, 6, 10 and 12 of Kollegal Constituency, Tables No. 2, 4, 8 and 9 of santhemaranahalli Assembly Constituency and tables 4, 6, 7, 8 and 10 of Gundlupet Assembly Constituency. Paras 22 to 25 reiterate the said 'allegations. In para 26, the petitioner gives certain figures which according to him represent the votes actually polled in his favour in the Assembly segments referred to therein. Paras 27 and 28 allege that rejection and mixing of votes was contrary to law and had materially affected the result of the election. For the sake of clarity, the petitioner's grievance as regards the improper reception and rejection of votes as also the irregularities in the matter of counting of the votes may be summed up thus: 1) More than 30,000 votes cast in favour of the petitioner have been rejected without assigning proper reasons. Most of these votes were rejected in Kollegal, Chamarajanagar, santhemaranahally and Gundlupet Constituencies. 2) The rejection was made by the Returning Officers of the assembly Constituencies who were not competent to do so. 3) The rejection of the votes was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Rules and without showing the ballots to the election agents of the petitioner. 4) The objections raised to the rejection of votes in regard to kollegal, Santemaranahalii, Chamarajanagar and Gundlupet assembly Constituencies were ignored by the officials concerned. 3) The rejection of the votes was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Rules and without showing the ballots to the election agents of the petitioner. 4) The objections raised to the rejection of votes in regard to kollegal, Santemaranahalii, Chamarajanagar and Gundlupet assembly Constituencies were ignored by the officials concerned. 5) The result of the election was materially affected by reason of a proper votes polled in favour of the petitioner with those counted in favour of the elected candidate. 6) Rejected ballot papers do not have the signatures of the returning Officer affixed to them as required under Section 56 of the Conduct of Election Rules. 7) The representation made by the petitioner seeking a recount was rejected mechnically. ( 17 ) THE question then is whet ler the allegations made by the petitioner in regard to the irregularities set out above are supported by the material facts required to be stated in terms of Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act. ( 18 ) IN so far as the petitioner's allegation that more than 33,000 votes cast in his favour were rejected without giving any proper reasons and that large scale irregularities were committed in the counting of votes, the petition does not disclose the basts' on which those allegations are made nor does it provide the material facts relevant thereto. The allegations are general in nature and blissfully vague. Simply saying that out of the rejected Votes more than 30,'000 were polled in favour of the petitioner is of no consequence in the absence of supporting material facts relevant thereto. Similarly, the omnibus allegation that large scale irregularities were committed in the counting of votes or that the votes polled in favour of the petitioners were rejected without assigning proper reasons does not meet the requirement of Section 83 of the Act nor do the said allegations give rise to a triable issue. ( 19 ) THE next allegation is that votes were rejected by the Returning officers of the Assembly Constituencies instead of the Returning officer of the Parliamentary Constituency. The absence of signatures of the Returning Officer of the Parliamentary Constituency, on the rejected Ballots is also urged as a ground to challenge the Election. ( 19 ) THE next allegation is that votes were rejected by the Returning officers of the Assembly Constituencies instead of the Returning officer of the Parliamentary Constituency. The absence of signatures of the Returning Officer of the Parliamentary Constituency, on the rejected Ballots is also urged as a ground to challenge the Election. The petition does not however make out a case for interference with the result of the Election even on the basis of the said allegations. It is common ground that Election for the Loksabha and the State Legislative Assembly were held together. The Returning officers for the Assembly Constituencies comprising the parliamentary Constituencies were appointed as the Assistant returning Officers for the Parliamentary Constituencies. The power of the Returning Officer in regard to rejection of Votes are exercisable even by the Assistant Returning Officers, appointed for the constituencies concerned. This is evident from Section 22 of the r. P. Act,, which reads :- " ( 1) The Election Commission may appoint one or more persons to assist any returning officer in the performance of his functions: provided that every such person shall be (an Officer of government or of a local authority ). (2) Every assistant returning Officer shall, subject to the control of the returning officer, be competent to perform all or any of the functions of the returning officer: provided that no assistant returning Officer shall perform any of the functions of the returning officer which relate to the scrutiny of nominations unless the returning officer is unavoidably prevented from performing the said functions. " ( 20 ) THE Assistant Returning Officers, were therefore entitled to perform all the functions of the Returning Officer except those relating to scrutiny of the nomination papers, which function could be performed by them only if the Returning Officer was unavoidably held up. The rejection of the votes by the Reluming Officers of the assembly Constituencies in exercise of their powers as Assistant returning Officers of the Parliamentary Constituency, cannot therefore be found fault with. It follows that the absence of the signature of the Returning Officer on the rejected Ballot Papers, would also be wholly immaterial so long as the Assistant Returning Officers have in keeping with the procedure prescribed by the Rules signed the rejected ballot papers. That the Assistant Returning Officers have signed the rejected ballot papers is not disputed. It follows that the absence of the signature of the Returning Officer on the rejected Ballot Papers, would also be wholly immaterial so long as the Assistant Returning Officers have in keeping with the procedure prescribed by the Rules signed the rejected ballot papers. That the Assistant Returning Officers have signed the rejected ballot papers is not disputed. The result is that the rejection of the ballot papers by the Assistant Returning Officers of the Parliamentary Constituency, does not afford any cause of action to sustain the petition. ( 21 ) THAT brings me to the allegation that the rejection of the Ballot papers was in violation of the procedure prescribed by the Rules and without showing them to the "election Agents" of the petitioner. It was argued by Mr. Shantaraju, Counsel for the second Respondent that the question of showing the rejected ballot papers to the "election agents" of the petitioner did not arise having regard to the fact that the petitioner like all other candidates was entitled to appoint only one "election Agent". Section 40 of the R. P. Act, entitles every candidate to appoint any person other than himself to be his "election agent". Section 45 provides that an "election Agent", may perform such functions as may be prescribed. There is therefore no gain said that the question of petitioner appointing more than one person as "election Agents" did not arise. The averment that the Ballot papers were rejected without showing the same to the "election agent" of the petitioner is thus clearly mis-placed. What the petitioner obviously means to say is that the votes were rejected Without showing them to his "counting Agents" appointed under Section 47 of the Act. Even if we ignore the confusion which the petitioner appears to be suffering from, the question is whether the allegation regarding rejection of the Votes contrary to the procedure prescribed by the Rules, and without showing the Ballots to the "counting agents" can be said to provide a cause of action. In so far as the violation of the procedure prescribed by the Rules is concerned, the election Petition does not give any details whatsoever. All that is stated is that the rejection was contrary to the procedure prescribed by the Rules. In so far as the violation of the procedure prescribed by the Rules is concerned, the election Petition does not give any details whatsoever. All that is stated is that the rejection was contrary to the procedure prescribed by the Rules. The petition ought to have set out the material facts in regard to the alleged violation which the petitioner had in mind whife making the said allegation. Similarly the allegation that the Votes were rejected without showing the same to "election Agents" ("counting Agents") is also bereft of any material facts. The petition does not indicate the number of votes that were rejected without showing the same to the "counting Agents" concerned nor does the petition give the names and particulars of the "counting Agents" concerned or the Assembly segment in relation to which such alleged irregularity was committed. The general allegation that ballots were rejected without showing the same to the "counting Agents" of the petitioner, would not therefore meet the requirements of Section 83 especially when the petitioner does not disclose the basis on which the said allegation is made. ( 22 ) COMING then to the rejection of Votes polled in Kollegaf, santhemaranahalli, Chamrajnagar and Gundlupet Assembly constituencies, all that the petitioner has stated is that the "counting agents" in respect of some of the Counting Tables, for the said assembly Constituencies had raised objections regarding improper rejection of votes, which were not considered by the Returning Officer, the petition does not however state the requisite facts in regard to the nature of objections and the number of votes that were rejected on each one of the tables referred to by the petitioner. As observed by the Supreme Court in JITENDRA BAHADUR SINGH vs KRISHNA behari AND OTHERS even if the petition gives certain figures as to the rejection of the valid votes and acceptance of invalid votes, the same cannot be considered as an adequate statement of material facts if the petitioner does not disclose the basis on which he arrived at those figures. A bald assertion that those figures were obtained from the "counting Agents" of the unsuccessful candidates cannot declared the Court afford the necessary basis. In the instant cases the petitioner has not even given the figures of the votes rejected improperly and despite objections raised by the Counting Agents on his behalf. A bald assertion that those figures were obtained from the "counting Agents" of the unsuccessful candidates cannot declared the Court afford the necessary basis. In the instant cases the petitioner has not even given the figures of the votes rejected improperly and despite objections raised by the Counting Agents on his behalf. The allegation is much too vague to give rise to a cause of action. As to how many votes were rejected and what were the objections that were raised against rejection thereof has not been disclosed. The allegation therefore remains unsupported by the material facts requisite for making out a triable case. ( 23 ) THE position is no different in regard to the allegation of the petitioner that votes polled in his favour were counted in favour of the elected candidate. Even here, the allegation is totally vague and general in nature. What the petitioner states is that with every bundle of 25 ballot papers 4 - 5 votes polled in his favour were mixed with the votes polled in favour of the second Respondent correspondingly reducing the number of votes polled in favour of the petitioner. The allegation is that objections regarding the improper mixing of votes in regard to certain Counting Tables for Kollegal, Chamrajnagar, santhemaranahalli and Gundlupet Constituencies were raised by the counting Agents but ignored by the Returning Officer. The petitioner does not however give any details as to the number of votes that were so mixed on each one of the tables referred to by the petitioner and the basis on which the allegation regarding improper mixing has been made. In the absence of material facts supporting the allegation of improper mixing it is difficult to see how the petitioner can claim a cause of action to maintain this petition. ( 24 ) LAST but not the least is the allegation regarding mechanical rejection of the Representation made by the petitioner in which the petitioner claims to have pointed out the irregularities in the improper reception, rejection and mixing up of votes in course of counting. A copy of the Representation filed by the petitioner has been produced as ANNEXURE-D to the petition. The English translation of the representation furnished by Mr. Gangireddy, Counsel for the petitioner reads as under:-