( 1 ) THIS Petition is filed for declaration that the election of the Respondent no. 1 as candidate from 04 Deogad Assembly constituency in the general election of the maharashtra Legislative Assembly held on 13th October, 2004 as Official candidate of the bhartiya Janata Party (hereinafter referred to as bjp) representing the alliance of Shi vsena bjp, be declared illegal, null and void. ( 2 ) THE notice in Form No. l declaring the Election programme was published on September 15, 2004. The date of filing nomination was from 15th September, 2004 till 22nd September. 2004. The scrutiny of nomination was to be undertaken on 23rd september, 2004 and the list of valid candidates after due scrutiny was to be published thereafter. Under the said notification, date of withdrawal of nomination was 25th September, 2004. On that date, besides the Petitioner, the six Respondents herein remained in the fray lor polling to be held on 13th October, 2004 between 7. 00 a. m. to 5. 00 p. m. The counting of votes in terms of notification was held on 16th October, 2004 when the Respondent No. l was declared as elected candidate from the said Constituency by the Returning Officer. The total votes polled as per the results declared by the Returning officer are stated to be 87,789. The Petitioner secured 41,312 votes; whereas, the Respondent no. 1 who was declared as Returned Candidate secured 42,384, elected by margin of 1072 votes. The other five candidates secured nominal votes ranging from 262 to 1,824. ( 3 ) THE present Election Petition has been filed by the defeated candidate in this court on 30th November, 2004. The Petitioner was the official candidate of the nationalist congress Party (NCP) representing alliance of "congress (I) - NCP - RPI Front". By this petition, the Petitioner challenges the election of the Respondent No. l on the various grounds, amongst others, corrupt practice. After notice was issued to the Respondents, the Respondent No. l who is the returned candidate, filed written statement. In the written statement, preliminary issue has been raised that Election Petition deserves to be dismissed within the meaning of Section 86 (1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). After notice was issued to the Respondents, the Respondent No. l who is the returned candidate, filed written statement. In the written statement, preliminary issue has been raised that Election Petition deserves to be dismissed within the meaning of Section 86 (1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). In view of the pleadings filed, by order dated December 21, 2005,i formulated two issues being issues of law to be decided as preliminary issues. The same read thus:" (1) Whether the Election Petition deserves to be dismissed within the meaning of Section 86 (1) of the Act, as the copy of the Election Petition served on the contesting Respondent is not a true copy thereof. (2) Whether averments in the Election petition are devoid of material facts and particulars, as a result of which, fails to disclose cause of action on account of which, same deserves to be dismissed within the meaning of Section 86 (1) read with Sections 83 and 81 of the Act. " ( 4 ) I propose to deal with the second issue first. The question is: whether the election Petition as presented, will have to be dismissed within the meaning of Section 86 (1) of the Act, as the same is devoid of material facts and particulars and fails to disclose cause of action? The attempt of the Petitioner on the other hand is to persuade me to take the view that the grievance of the Respondent No. l even if accepted as it is, it would, at best, mean that the Petition lacks details or particulars in relation to the allegations on the basis of which the election of Respondent No. l is to be declared as illegal, null and void; that defect can be cured by the Petitioner with the permission of the Court consistent with the provision in Section 86 (5) of the Act. It was argued that even if the Petition does not contain some material facts in relation to the allegations on the basis of which the election will have to be voided, that cannot be the basis to dismiss the Election Petition by taking recourse to provisions of Section 86 (1) of the Act. I shall straightaway deal with these submissions. It was argued that even if the Petition does not contain some material facts in relation to the allegations on the basis of which the election will have to be voided, that cannot be the basis to dismiss the Election Petition by taking recourse to provisions of Section 86 (1) of the Act. I shall straightaway deal with these submissions. ( 5 ) THE scheme of Section 86 (1) of the Act mandates that the election petition shall be dismissed by the Court, if it does not comply with the provisions of Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117. In other words, Section 86 (1) obligates the Court to dismiss the election Petition on account of non- compliance of Section 81 of the Act. Subhere in abovesection (1) of Section 81 of the Act provides for filing of Election Petition within specified time. This provision is not invoked by the respondent No. l in the present case. Similarly, neither ground of non-compliance of Section 82 or Section 117 is pressed by the Respondent no. 1. That leaves us with the non-compliance of Section 81 (3) as the ground for dismissing the Petition under Section 86 of the Act. That provision provides that every "election petition" shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are Respondents mentioned in the Petition and every such copy shall be attested by the Petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the Petition. Indeed, Section 86 (1) makes no reference to the situation that if the election petition is devoid of material facts, the same can be dismissed. However, by now, it is well established that if the Election Petition lacks materialfacts on which the Petitioner relies, the same ought to be dismissed in exercise of powers under Section 86 (1) of the Act read with provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code ). That is so because section 81 refers to "an election petition". Section 83 provides for the contents of an election Petition. That is so because section 81 refers to "an election petition". Section 83 provides for the contents of an election Petition. If the Petition does not conform to the requirements of Section 83, in particular, sub-section (l) (a) namely, lacks material facts, in that event, the Petition as filed cannot be allowed to proceed for want of cause of action; for it is not open to the election petitioner to improve upon that deficiency after the expiry of the period of limitation specified in sub-section (1) of Section 81 of the Act. In other words, even though Section 86 (1) makes no reference to Section 83 (1) (a) as such, even so, the Election Petition, if it fails to set forth "all the material facts" on which the Petitioner relies so as to disclose the cause of action, such petition will have to be thrown out at the threshold. That power is not only to be exercised with reference to Section 86 (1) of the Act, but also flows from provisions of order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the code), which obligates the Court to throw out the Petition at the threshold if the same does not disclose cause of action. There are catena of decisions of the Apex Court to fortify the above legal position. It will be useful to refer to the statement of law expounded in the decision of the Apex Court in Azhar Hussain vs. Rajiv Gandhi reported in AIR 1986 SC 1253, which restates the legal position that the election Petition ought to be dismissed at the threshold for non-compliance of provisions of section 83 for failure to incorporate in the petition all the material facts and particulars relating to alleged corrupt practices to disclose the Cause of action, by invoking powers under the Code: further, it is settled law that omission df a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action relating to charge of corrupt practice and such election petition is not an election petition at all. ( 6 ) IN another decision of the Apex court in the case of Lalit Kishore Chaturvedi vs. Jagdish Prasad Thada and Ors. ( 6 ) IN another decision of the Apex court in the case of Lalit Kishore Chaturvedi vs. Jagdish Prasad Thada and Ors. reported in AIR 1990 SC 1731 , it is observed that if the Petition does not conform to the requirements of Section 83, the Petition is liable to be dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code. It is not necessary to multiply authorities to buttress the above legal position. The question is: whether the Petition as filed discloses complete cause of action? It is well established that bundle of facts constitute cause of action. It is also well established that there is distinction between "material facts" and "particulars". Counsel for the Petitioner has rightly placed reliance on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Sardar Harcharan singh Brar Vs. Sukh Darshan Singh and Ors. reported in 2004 (7) Supreme 721 , which has restated the legal position culled out from several decisions on the point. In Para 11 of the said reported decision, reference is made to earlier three Judges Bench decision in mahindra Pals case reported in 2000 (1) SCC 261 . The extract from that Judgment is reproduced in Para 11. It is observed by the apex Court therein that whether in an election petition, a particular fact is material or not and as such required to be pleaded is a question which depends upon the nature of the charge levelled and the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court then went on to note the distinction between "material facts" and "particulars". It is observed that facts which are essential to disclose a complete cause of action are material facts and are required to be pleaded. On the other hand "particulars" are details of the case set up by the party and are such pleas which are necessary to amplify, refine or explain material facts. It is also noted that failure to give even a single material fact leads to incomplete cause of action and incomplete allegations of such a charge are liable to be struck off under Order VI, Rule 16 of the Code. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, the next enquiry that will have to be undertaken is: whether the averments in the Election Petition plead all the relevant material facts to disclose cause of action. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, the next enquiry that will have to be undertaken is: whether the averments in the Election Petition plead all the relevant material facts to disclose cause of action. To consider this controversy, we will have to revert to the contents of the presenl election Petition. ( 8 ) THE first ground on which the petitioner seeks declaration that the election of Respondent No. 1 is illegal, null and void is on account of Respondent No. 1 filing false and misleading affidavit. This ground is essentially highlighted in Paras 7 to 18 of the Election petition. The question is: whether the election of Respondent No. 1 can be declared to be void on the ground of filing false or incorrect affidavit before the Returning Officer. To consider this question, we will have to advert to the grounds on which election of the returned candidate, can be declared to be void, as specified in Section 100 (1) of the Act. The first amongst them, is that, in the opinion of the high Court on the date of the Election of the returned candidate, he was not qualified or was disqualified to be chosen to fill the Seat under the Constitution or the Act of 1951 or the government of Union Territories Act, 1963. The question that will have to be considered is: whether the Election Petition invokes this ground for declaring the Election of the respondent No. l as void? I shall presently address this issue after referring to the relevant paragraphs, which read thus:"7. On 20th September, 2004, the respondent no. l filed his nomination along with an affidavit in the prescribed form. The respondent no. 1 was under an obligation to disclose all his liabilities towards government dues as on date of filing his nomination as required by presented format of the said affidavit. The particulars of the dues owing by respondent no. l are set out in letter dated 20th October, 2004. A copy whereof is annexed to the petition. The respondent no. l was not entitled to conceal or suppress any fact or give false information. The affidavit accompanying the nomination paper is integral part of nomination paper. 8. Filing of a false affidavit could and must lead to rejection of nomination paper. A copy whereof is annexed to the petition. The respondent no. l was not entitled to conceal or suppress any fact or give false information. The affidavit accompanying the nomination paper is integral part of nomination paper. 8. Filing of a false affidavit could and must lead to rejection of nomination paper. Filing of a false affidavit accompanying the nomination paper amounts to a criminal offence and is punishable under representation of people Act 1951. At the relevant time, the petitioner did not know the fact that the respondent no. 1 was infact indebted to Government and there were infact outstanding government dues to the extent of Rs. 9,196/ -. It is now proved as a fact as held by the Chief Election Officer, duly forwarded to Tehsildar that the respondent no. l did file a false affidavit along with hisnomination by concealing the above fact and by stating that no government dues were outstanding. The relevant facts were within the knowledge of respondent no. l. The fundamental right of information guaranteed under Article 19[1] [a| of the Constitution was infringed by respondent no. l by concealing relevant information from the returning officer as a fore said. The format of the affidavit presented by statutory authority is mandatory. In view of the affidavit being false as aforesaid, this Honble Court be pleased to hold that the respondent no. l did not file valid nomination and the nomination be treated as if unaccompanied by an affidavit. The petitioner submits on this ground alone, the election of respondent no. 1 is liable to be declared void and the petitioner is entitled to declaration to the effect that the petitioner is elected as m. L. A. from the said constituency. The petitioner relies on order NO. 3/er/2003/js-II ated 27th March, 2003 and orders issued by District Election Officer. The petitioner craves leave to refer to and rely upon the same as and when produced. ( 9 ) NOW a short history of the Petitioner and his works put in, in the 04-Deogad constituency since 20 years and has done tremendous work in the constituency knowing full well that it is difficult for the respondent No. 1 to equate the quantum of work done by the Petitioner, the respondent No. l resorted to various corrupt practices through himself and his agent and/or through any other person, in the present election. ( 10 ) THE Petitioner hails from the village kunkeshwar, Taluka Deogad of the District sindhudurg, which comes in the said 04 deogad despite coming from a poor family of a farmer, the Petitioner has taken tremendous pains and completed his education to become a qualified engineer. Thereafter with his hard work and friendly nature, very soon he became a successful businessman. For last over 20 years the petitioner is actively participating in social, charitable as well as political activities in konkan Region more specifically in mumbai and Deogad i. e. the present constituency, as a member and office bearer of the Congress Party and now the nationalist Congress Party. In fact he is a senior Party functionary and presently working as the Vice President of the mumbai Pradesh Nationalist Congress party. Earlier he has contested election of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation in 1985 as Congress [socialist] Party candidate. formed under the leadership of Shri. Sharad pawar and was elected as a corporator from the Ward No. 35- byculla Mumbai municipal Corporation Constituency. Again he contested the next Mumbai municipal Corporation election in 1992 from Ward No. 24 - agripada Corporation constituency, representing Congress [i] and won the same. He has completed the two consecutive terms as a Corporator of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation successfully. During his tenure as a corporator the Petitioner was appointed has honoured the position such as member of standing Committee Educational committee, Law Committee and improvements Committee of the Mumbai municipal Corporation. He is widely known, loved and respected figure in mumbai as well as in the said constituency. The Petitioner craves leave to refer to and rely upon the social works done by him in the Constituency described in the booklet. ( 11 ) THE present constituency i. e. 04 deogad was a congress and socialist stronghold however sometimes in 1985 one shri. Janardan Moreshwar @ Appa Gogate of the Bartiya Janta Party [bjp], was elected from the said constituency for the first time wherein he secured 21,386 votes. Because of his clean image as well as the state level political fluctuations, Shri. Appa gogate retained his position in 1990 by securing 41,126 votes. In 1995 Mr. Appa gogate secured 51,352 votes and won the election. Because of his clean image as well as the state level political fluctuations, Shri. Appa gogate retained his position in 1990 by securing 41,126 votes. In 1995 Mr. Appa gogate secured 51,352 votes and won the election. But gradually even Shri. Appa gogate adopted the well trodden road of all politicians and started promoting nepotism in the party as well as the constituency i. e. 04-Deogad Constituency, this created lot of displeasure in the voters of 04- Deogad Constituency as well as amongst the dedicated active workers and also the office bearers of the BJP. He however contested the Maharashtra legislative Assembly Elections in 1999, but his votes were substantially reduced to only 23,268 votes compared to his 51,352 votes in 1995, in the said election of 1999 one more reason why Appa Gogate could retain his seat was, that there was a spilt in the Indian National Congress [inc] and the nationalist Congress Party [ncp] was born out of it as a separate political party. The petitioner craves leave to refer to and rely upon the said election results as and when produced. These both sects i. e. Nationalist congress Party and the Nationalist congress Party, of the split Congress, contested the elections against each other, resultantly dividing the original Congress votes. However, in the present election both the parties i. e. INC and NCP came together forming an alliance with the Republican party of India [rpi]. ( 12 ) NOW if we look at the scenario in the 04 - Deogad Constituency at the time of the present assembly election i. e. held in 2004, the situation was entirely in the favour of the Petitioner, firstly the voters were already dissatisfied with Appa Gogate as he wasnt quite active due to his old age and secondly his tactics of nepotism were very much rejected by the people of 04 deogad constituency. Had the Congress not been divided the said Appa Gogate would have lost in the earlier 1999 Assembly election itself, but he could somehow mange to retain the said seat, as both the sects i. e. INC and NCP once again came together and joined hands with the RPI in the present election the i. e. 2004, it was practically visible that whosoever would contest from Congress alliance in 04 deogad Constituency would be definitely enjoying a upperhand over the Shiv Sena bjp alliance. In such a situation when the candidatures of the Petitioner herein was declared as a candidate of INC/ncp/rpi alliance, it was a big jolt to the Respondent no. l and his party, for the simple reason that the Petitioner was enjoying one additional point that he belonged to bhandari Community which is the major community in 04 - Deogad Constituency. ( 13 ) ON this background the sitting MLA appa Gogate was still adopting nepotism and was successful in securing the candidature for his nephew Ajit Gogate i. e. Respondent No. 1 as his successor in 04 deogad Constituency. It is pertinent to note here that looking at the displeasure about his working and his inactivity due to old age he had declared voluntary retirement from the election fray. But as the candidature of Respondent No. l i. e. nephew of sitting MLA Shri. Appa Gogate was declared there was a turmoil generated in the district BJP and many office bearers and active members of the BJP from the deogad Constituency resigned en-mass protesting against the candidature of respondent No. l to name some of ihe senior persons who protested against the candidature of Respondent No. l were 1. Madhav Bhandari [president. Sindhudurg district, BJP Committee] and 2. Mr. Navindrachandra Bandivadekar [vice-President, sindhudurg District BJP ] and also senior partyleaders of BJP like Mr. Sudhir Joshi, Mr. Sada Ogle etc, was this less that the Janata Dal [secular], a political party, which has a considerable following in the said constituency openly supported the Petitioner in 04-Deogad Constituency. Because of the cumulative effect of all these factors respondent no. l started apprehending his sure defeat and hence he resorted to unfair means and corrupt practices since the very beginning of his campaign. ( 14 ) THE Respondent No. l, despite being a practicing advocate adopted unfair means and corrupt practices from the word go. This was clear because he has knowingly furnished incorrect information regarding his liabilities payable to the Govt. , Financial institutions and or, Govt. Semi Govt. authorities in the mandatory affidavit submitted to the Returning Officer. This is for the simple reason that as per the procedure the said affidavit he is required to made public by the returning officer. The respondent No. 1 filed this affidavit on 20th september, 2004 in prescribed alongwith his nomination as a candidate. Semi Govt. authorities in the mandatory affidavit submitted to the Returning Officer. This is for the simple reason that as per the procedure the said affidavit he is required to made public by the returning officer. The respondent No. 1 filed this affidavit on 20th september, 2004 in prescribed alongwith his nomination as a candidate. Hereto annexed and marked as exhibit A is the true translated copy of the nomination papers alongwith the Affidavit filed by the respondent No. l dated 20th September, 2004, [a] In clause A (3) of the Para No. 3 of the affidavit of the Respondent No. l regarding Government dues, more particularly, sub-clause (b) thereof, against the dues in respect of the departments of water supply the Respondent No. l has mentioned dues as NIL which information is false and incorrect. The Petitioner craves leave to refer to and rely upon the document papers and proceedings in the criminal matter and of the department of water supply as and when produced. ( 15 ) WHEN the Petitioner learnt that the respondent No. l has furnished incorrect information or has concealed the material particulars, he addressed a letter dated 19th october, 2004 to the Sub-Divisional officer, Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, deogad and requested to verify the correctness of the information furnished by the Respondent No. l. The Petitioner received a letter from the Sub-Divisional officer, Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, deogad, dated 21st October, 2004, thereby placing on record, that as on 19th October, 2004, a sum of Rs. 9,196/- (Rupees Nine thousand One Hundred Ninety Six Only) was due and payable by the Respondent no. l. Hereto annexed and marked as exhibit B is the copy of the true translation of the letter dated 21st October, 2004. The petitioner had therefore filed a complaint against the Respondent No. l with the District Election Officer and collector, Sindhudurg. After hearing both the parties the District Election Officer and collector, Sindhudurg passed an order dated 9th November, 2004 thereby holding that the Respondent No. l is guilty of suppression of material facts and which is a defect of substantial character, directed the Assistant District Election Officer to register the offence as per law. I crave leave to refer to any rely upon the same as and when produced. I request the Court to direct the Assistant District Election Officer, sindhudurg, therein to produce the said order in Court. I crave leave to refer to any rely upon the same as and when produced. I request the Court to direct the Assistant District Election Officer, sindhudurg, therein to produce the said order in Court. This act of the respondent no. l falls squarely into the grounds for declaring the election to be void under section 100 of the Act. The Petitioner respectfully submits that since the affidavit in the prescribed format is required to be filed along with the nomination papers, it forms the part of the nomination papers, therefore if the affidavit suffers from any defect of substantial character, the nomination filed by the candidate is deemed to be defective and therefore the same should be rejected. In the present case, the affidavit filed by the Respondent No. l suffers from the defect of a substantial character therefore the nomination filed by the Respondent No. 1 is liable to be rejected in limine. The election of the respondent no. 1 on a defective nomination is therefore void and invalid. ( 16 ) THE Petitioner relies on sections 123, 125-A. 127-A, 130 and other relevant provisions of the act. ( 17 ) ON 20th September, 2004, the respondent no. l filed his nomination along with an affidavit in the prescribed form. The respondent no. l was under an obligation to disclose all his liabilities towards government dues as on date of filing his nomination as required by presented format of the said affidavit. The particulars of the dues owing by respondent no. 1 are sent out in letter dated 20th October, 2004. A copy whereof is annexed to the petition. The respondent no. 1 was not entitled to conceal or suppress any fact or give false conformation. The affidavit accompanying the nomination paper is integral part of nomination paper. ( 18 ) FILING of a false afidavit could and must lead to rejection of nomination paper. Filing of a false affidavit accompanying the nomination paper amounts to a criminal offence and is punishable under representation of people Act 1951. At the relevant time, the petitioner did not know the fact that the respondent no. 1 was infact indebted to Government and there were infact outstanding government dues to the extent of Rs. 9,196/ -. It is now proved as a fact as held by the Chief Election Officer, duty forwarded to Tehsildar that the respondent no. At the relevant time, the petitioner did not know the fact that the respondent no. 1 was infact indebted to Government and there were infact outstanding government dues to the extent of Rs. 9,196/ -. It is now proved as a fact as held by the Chief Election Officer, duty forwarded to Tehsildar that the respondent no. l did file a false affidavit along with his nomination by concealing the above fact and by stating that no government dues were outstanding. The relevant facts were within the knowledge of respondent no. 1. The fundamental right of information guaranteed under Article 19[1] [a] of the Constitution was infringed by respondent no. 1 by concealing relevant information from the returning officer as aforesaid. The format of the affidavit presented by statutory authority is mandatory. In view of the affidavit being false as aforesaid, this Honble Court be pleased to hold that the respondent no. 1 did not file valid nomination and the nomination be treated as if unaccompanied by an affidavit. The petitioner submits on this ground alone, the election of respondent no. l is liable to be declared to the effect that the petitioner is elected as m. L. A. from the said constituency. The petitioner relies on order no. 3/er/2003/js. II ated 27th March, 2003. "9. Even on fair reading of the entire petition, it is not possible to take the view that the assertions in the Petition are in any manner referab1e to ground for dec1aring e1ection void within the meaning of Section 100 (1) (a) of the act. Simi1ar1y, the ground of fi1ing fa1se affidavit by the returned candidate is not a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 of the Act. There can be no quarre1 with this proposition. In that sense, even the second ground provided in Section 100 (1) (b) cannot be invoked. The third ground provided in section 100 (1) (c) is one of improper rejection of any nomination. That is not the case made out by the Petitioner in the present Petition. In the circumstances, the on1y other ground which remains to be adverted to and presumab1y has been invoked by the Petitioner against the respondent No. 1 is referab1e to Section 100 (1) (d ). Section 100 (1) (d) in turn refers to four situations. The first is of improper acceptance of any nomination. In the circumstances, the on1y other ground which remains to be adverted to and presumab1y has been invoked by the Petitioner against the respondent No. 1 is referab1e to Section 100 (1) (d ). Section 100 (1) (d) in turn refers to four situations. The first is of improper acceptance of any nomination. Even on construing the abovesaid a11egations in the petition 1ibera11y, it is not possib1e to assume that the ground under c1ause (i) has been invoked in the context of a11egation of fi1ing of fa1se affidavit by the Respondent No. 1 before the Returning Officer. Perhaps, it is possib1e to say that the Petitioner has invoked the fourth c1ause provided in Section 100 (1) (d ). That refers to non-comp1iance of the provisions of the Constitution or of the Act of 1951 or of any ru1es or orders made under that Act. To invoke this ground, however, what is required to be a11eged is that the resu1t of the e1ection insofar as it concerns the returned candidate has been materia11y affected by such act- whether referab1e to c1ause (i) or c1ause (iv) in section 100 (1) (d ). 10. 1et us now scan through the e1ection Petition to ascertain whether this requirement has been c1ear1y stated in the e1ection Petition. Counse1 for the Petitioner during course of argument has submitted that the Court wi11 have to consider the Petition as a who1e and not pick up one or two paragraphs to answer the point in issue. In addition to paragraphs 7 to 18, he p1aced re1iance on paragraphs 5, 6, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 to contend that it is a case of improper acceptance of nomination of the Respondent No. 1 on account of fi1ing of fa1se affidavit before the returning Officer. It wi11 be apposite to reproduce the above said paragraphs in its entirety, which read thus:"5. The Petitioner is cha11enging the e1ection of the Respondent No. 1 i. e. the returned candidate, on the various grounds of corrupt practice amongst other grounds, that the resu1ts of the e1ection in so far as the returned candidate is concerned have been materia11y affected by the non comp1iance of and/or acts of vio1ation of the provisions of the Representation of the peop1es Act, 1951, the Ru1es framed thereunder viz. the Conduct of E1ection ru1es 1961 and the Orders passed thereunder as a1so the Mode1 Code of conduct for the Guidance of Po1itica1 parties and Candidates issued by the e1ection Commission of India and the order dated 27th March, 2003. The respondent No. 1, himse1f his e1ection agent or by any other person with the consent of the Respondent No. 1 or his e1ection agent have committed acts which are and deemed to be corrupt practices under the provisions of the Representation of the Peop1es Act 1951. [hereinafter referred to as the Act] and or otherwise prohibited under the provision of the conduct of E1ection Ru1es, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the Ru1es] and or the Mode1 Code of Conduct for the guidance of Po1itica1 Parties and candidates issued by the E1ection commission of India, [hereinafter referred to as "the Code of Conduct"6. As per the provisions of the Act and orders and direction so far issued or passed by the E1ection Commission of India, the respondent No. 1 is disqua1ified from contesting the said e1ection and his nomination shou1d have been rejected by the Returning Officer. The resu1ts of the e1ection has materia11y been affected due to improper acceptance of the nomination of the Respondent No. 1 and that corrupt practices have been committed by the respondent No. 1 and his e1ection agent and many other persons with the consent of the respondent No. 1 and or his e1ection agent. Even otherwise the resu1ts of the said e1ection in so far as they pertain to the returned candidate are concerned, are demonstrab1y materia11y affected by such acts of corrupt practices or breaches of the provisions of the Act, Ru1es framed thereunder or the Code of Conduct, committed by the returned candidate, his e1ection agent and / or other persons with the consent of the returned candidate or his e1ection agent. The Acts of the Respondent no. 1 his e1ection agent or by other person by the consent of the Respondent No. 1 or his e1ection agent, vio1ating of the provisions of the Code of Conduct are offences under the Act. On these grounds itse1f the e1ection of the respondent No. 1 who is the returned candidate shou1d be dec1ared as void u/s 100 (1) of the representation of the Peop1e Act, 1951. The petitioner re1ies on sections 123, 125-A, 127-A, 130 and other re1evant provisions of the act. 29. On these grounds itse1f the e1ection of the respondent No. 1 who is the returned candidate shou1d be dec1ared as void u/s 100 (1) of the representation of the Peop1e Act, 1951. The petitioner re1ies on sections 123, 125-A, 127-A, 130 and other re1evant provisions of the act. 29. In these facts and circumstances it is c1ear1y estab1ished that :- (a) The Respondent No. 1 has furnished wrong and/or incomp1ete information and or have suppressed the materia1 information in or from the affidavit dated 20th september, 2004, in the to the Order dated 27th March, 2003 passed by the E1ection commission of India, which is a defect of substantia1 characters and therefore the nomination fi1ed by the Respondent No. 1 is defective. (b) The Respondent No. 1 either himse1f or through his e1ection agent, or any person with the consent of the Respondent No. 1 or his e1ection agent has committed severe breaches and/or vio1ation of the directions orders contained in the Mode1 Code of conduct issued by the E1ection commission of India and/or orders passed by them from time to time in exercise of their authority under Artic1e 324 of constitution of India. (c) The Respondent No. 1, his E1ection agent or other person with the consent of the Respondent No. 1 or his e1ection agent have committed severa1 acts which c1ear1y amount to corrupt practices as defined under the provisions of the Act. (d) It is pertinent to note the Respondent no. 1 who has the audacity and guts to 1ead about 350 of his party workers and attack the Deogad Po1ice Station on the 15th day of October, 2004. He has the audacity to take the 1aw and order in his own hands. The Deogad Po1ice Station has registered an FIR being FIR No. 47 of 2004, wherein he is the main accused. The Petitioner craves 1eave to refer to and re1y upon the same as and when produced. In these circumstances one can understand what wou1d be the fate of the poor vi11ages in the said constituency. 30. The Deogad Po1ice Station has registered an FIR being FIR No. 47 of 2004, wherein he is the main accused. The Petitioner craves 1eave to refer to and re1y upon the same as and when produced. In these circumstances one can understand what wou1d be the fate of the poor vi11ages in the said constituency. 30. The Petitioner submits that by the acts of the Respondent No. 1, either the breaches and/or vio1ation of the provisions of the code of Conduct and/or other orders passed by the E1ection Commission of India or amounting to corrupt practice under the provisions of the Act, the resu1t of the e1ection is materia11y affected and the e1ection of the respondent No. 1 is 1iab1e to be set aside under the provisions of the Act. 31. The petitioner submits that not on1y that the Respondent No. 1 is not entit1ed to contest the e1ection in view of the substantia1 defect in his affidavit dated 20th september, 2004 but after deducting the affected votes of the Respondent No. 1 is c1ear that the petitioner is entit1ed to be dec1ared e1ected and this Honb1e Court be pleased to dec1are the petitioner as du1y e1ected from the o4 Deogad Assemb1y constituency. 32. The Petitioner re1ies on sections 123, 125-A, 127-A, 130 and other re1evant provisions of the act. 33. On 20th September, 2004, the respondent no. 1 fi1ed his nomination a1ong with an affidavit in the prescribed form. The respondent no. 1 was under an ob1igation to disc1ose a11 his 1iabi1ities towards government dues as on date of fi1ing his nomination as required by presented format of the said affidavit. The particu1ars of the dues owing by respondent no. 1 are set out in 1etter dated 20th October, 2004. Acopy whereof is annexed to the petition. The respondent no. 1 was not entit1ed to concea1 or suppress any fact or give fa1se conformation. The affidavit accompanying the nomination paper is integra1 part of nomination papers. 34. Fi1ing of a fa1se affidavit cou1d and must 1ead to rejection of nomination paper. Fi1ing of a fa1se affidavit accompanying the nomination paper amounts to a crimina1 offence and is punishab1e under representation of the Peop1e Act, 1951. At the re1evant time, the petitioner did not know the fact that the respondent no. 1 was infact indebted to Government and there were infact outstanding government dues to the extent of Rs. Fi1ing of a fa1se affidavit accompanying the nomination paper amounts to a crimina1 offence and is punishab1e under representation of the Peop1e Act, 1951. At the re1evant time, the petitioner did not know the fact that the respondent no. 1 was infact indebted to Government and there were infact outstanding government dues to the extent of Rs. 9,196/ -. It is now proved as a fact as he1d by the Chief E1ection officer, du1y forwarded to Tehsi1dar that the respondent no. 1 did fi1e a fa1se affidavit a1ong with his nomination by concea1ing the above fact and by stating that no government dues were outstanding. The re1evant facts were within the know1edge of respondent no. 1. The fundamenta1 right of information guaranteed under Artic1e 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution was infringed by respondent no. 1 by concea1ing re1evant information from the returning officer as aforesaid. The format of the affidavit presented by statutory authority is mandatory. In view of the affidavit being fa1se as aforesaid, this Honb1e Court be p1eased to ho1d that the respondent no. 1 did not fi1e va1id nomination and the nomination be treated as if unaccompanied by an affidavit. The petitioner submits on this ground a1one, the e1ection of respondent no. 1 is 1iab1e to be dec1ared void and the petitioner is entit1ed to dec1aration to the effect that the petitioner is e1ected as m. 1. A from the said constituency. " 11. In the first p1ace, I sha11 ana1yse the E1ection Petition parawise to discern whether a11 the re1evant materia1 facts to disc1ose cause of action so as to dec1are the e1ection of Respondent No. 1 as void on the stated ground is made out. On reading each of the above para independent1y or a11 the paragraphs as a who1e, it is not possib1e to take the view that the ground provided in Section 100 (1) (a) has been invoked by the E1ection petition. The said ground provides that on the date of e1ection of the returned candidate, he was not qua1ified or was disqua1ified to be chosen to fi11 the seat under the Constitution or the Act of 1951 or the Government of Union territories Act, 1963. The qua1ification to be e1ected as member of the 1egis1ative Assemb1y of the State is provided by the Constitution under Artic1e 173. The qua1ification to be e1ected as member of the 1egis1ative Assemb1y of the State is provided by the Constitution under Artic1e 173. It is not the case of the e1ection Petitioner that the Respondent No. 1 was a person not qua1ified to be chosen to fi11 a seat in the 1egis1ature of a State, having fai1ed to fu1fi1 any of the qua1ifications referred to in artic1e 173 of the Constitution. Insofar as Act of 1951 is concerned, Section 5 provides for qua1ifications of membership of a 1egis1ative assemb1y. Once again, nowhere in the Petition, it is even remote1y suggested that the respondent No. 1 was not qua1ified within the meaning of the said provision. Simi1ar1y, in the entire Petition, it is nowhere the case of the petitioner that the Respondent No. 1 was disqua1ified to be chosen to fi11 the seat under any of the provisions of the Constitution or the act of 1951. The provision regarding disqua1ification can be cu11ed out from Chapter iii and Chapter IV of Act of 1951. Section 8 of the Act of 1951 provides for disqua1ification on conviction for certain offences. It is not the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent No. 1 has been convicted for any of the specified offences under that provision. From the averments in Paragraphs 15 and 16 referred to above, it can at best be assumed that the petitioner asserts that crimina1 case for offence punishab1e under Section 125-A of the Act has been registered against the Respondent No. 1. That, however, is not sufficient to disqua1ify respondent No. 1 on the date of his e1ection on which he was dec1ared a returned candidate. The disqua1ification, if at a11, wi11 be incurred after the crimina1 case ends in conviction. Interesting1y, Section 125a of the Act is not part of the severa1 specified offences under section 8. Section 8 (1) (a) refers to offence under Section 153a or 171e or 171f or subhere in abovesection (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 376 or Section 376-A or Section 376b or Section 376c or Section 376d or Section 498a or section 505 (2) and (3) a11 of Indian Pena1 code. Section 8 (1) (a) refers to offence under Section 153a or 171e or 171f or subhere in abovesection (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 376 or Section 376-A or Section 376b or Section 376c or Section 376d or Section 498a or section 505 (2) and (3) a11 of Indian Pena1 code. On carefu1 ana1ysis of Section 8 of the act of 1951, it is seen that the offences under the Act of 1951 which are specified in c1ause (i) of Section 8 (1) are on1y Sections 125, 135, 135-A and 136 (2) (a ). In other words, Section 125a which dea1s with pena1ty for fi1ing fa1se affidavit has not been specified as offence for the purpose of disqua1ification. Suffice it to observe that ground under Section 100 (1) (a) has not been pressed into service. 12. The on1y other ground which can be ascribab1e to the contents of paragraphs referred to above is Section 100 (1 ) (d) (i) or (iv ). Insofar as Section 100 (1) (d) whether c1ause (i) or c1ause (iv) is concerned, the same can be invoked on1y if the resu1t of the e1ection insofar as it concerns the returned candidate has been materia11y affected by the improper acceptance of any nomination or by any non-comp1iance of the provisions of the Constitution or of the act of 1951 or any ru1es or orders made under the Act. The materia1 facts to disc1ose cause of action for invoking these grounds wou1d a1so require a11egation of fi1ing of fa1se affidavit with "intent to" materia11y affect the resu1t of the e1ection. One of the ingredients of offence under Section 125 A is that the fa1se affidavit has been fi1ed with intent to be e1ected in the e1ection, the candidate gives fa1se information in such affidavit which he knows or has reason to be1ieve to be fa1se or concea1s any information. Besides, the e1ection of such returned candidate can be dec1ared void in terms of Section 100 (1) (d) on1y if it were to be asserted that, in fact, because of the fa1se affidavit fi1ed by the returned candidate, the resu1t of his e1ection is materia11y affected: and provide for materia1 facts as to in what manner the e1ection has been materia11y affected. 13. Going back to Paragraph 5 of the petition, the averments therein are too genera1. 13. Going back to Paragraph 5 of the petition, the averments therein are too genera1. The contents thereof are more or 1ess reciting or reproducing the 1anguage of the re1evant provisions, for which, the e1ection of the returned candidate can be dec1ared void. Same is the situation with regard to the contents of paragraph 6 of the Petition referred to above. As a matter of fact, the Petition makes no distinction as to the fact that the e1ection of the Respondent No. 1 is materia11y affected because of the fa1se affidavit or on account of the a11eged ccrrupt practices specified in the petition. Indeed, in Paragraph 5, it is mentioned that the e1ection of the returned candidate has been materia11y affected by non-comp1iance and or acts of vio1ation of the provisions of act of 1951 ad so on. As mentioned ear1ier that is on1y reproduction of the 1anguage of the provision and not giving the materia1 facts on the basis of which that a11egation can be maintained. Viewed thus, Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Petition wi11 be of no avai1 to the petitioner. 14. That takes us to Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Petition. In Paragraph 7, it is mentioned that the Respondent No. 1 filed his nomination with the Returning Officer in the prescribed form. The Respondent No. 1 was under an ob1igation to disc1ose a11 his 1iabi1ities towards government dues as on the date of fi1ing his nomination as required by present format of the said affidavit. It then proceeds to mention that the Respondent No. 1 ought not to have concea1ed or suppressed any fact or provided fa1se information in the affidavit, which is an integra1 part of the nomination papers. In paragraph 8, it is stated that fi1ing of fa1se affidavit must 1ead to rejection of nomination paper. It is then stated that 1ater on the petitioner 1earnt about suppression of re1evant fact by the Respondent No. 1 in the affidavit that he was indebted to the Government to the extent of Rs. 9,196/- (Rupees Nine Thousand one Hundred Ninety-six) and that fact has now been estab1ished before the Chief E1ection officer. It is then stated that 1ater on the petitioner 1earnt about suppression of re1evant fact by the Respondent No. 1 in the affidavit that he was indebted to the Government to the extent of Rs. 9,196/- (Rupees Nine Thousand one Hundred Ninety-six) and that fact has now been estab1ished before the Chief E1ection officer. Even on fair reading of Paragraphs 7 and 8 independent1y or together, it is nowhere stated that the fa1se affidavit was fi1ed by the respondent No. 1 with an intent to be e1ected in the e1ection and thatthe Respondent No. 1 knew and had reason to be1ieve that the information given in the affidavit was fa1se or that the fa1se affidavit was fi1ed with an intent to materia11y affect the resu1t of the e1ection of the Respondent No. 1 and further, in fact, because of such fa1se affidavit, the resu1t of the e1ection has been materia11y affected insofar as the Respondent No. 1 is concerned and the manner in which it has so affected. In absence of such averments, it necessari1y fo11ows that a11 the re1evant materia1 facts to disc1ose cause of action have not been stated in the Petition. 15. We sha11 now refer to Paragraph 9 onwards. In Paras 9 and 10, the emphasis is p1aced on certain events which have unfo1ded in 1ast twenty years to give the short history of the Petitioner and his po1itica1 achievements. Even this paragraphs wi11 be of no use for considering the point in issue. 16. That takes us to Paragraph 11 of the Petition. This Paragraph mentions as to how the candidate of the party to which the respondent No. 1 be1onged, had 1ost his strong ho1d on the Constituency and the voters. Even on 1ibera1 reading, at best, it can be said that the Petitioner intends to project that the party to which he be1onged name1y Nationa1ist congress Party had better chances during the subject e1ections. Once again, even this paragraph does not refer to any materia1 fact so as to constitute cause of action to invoke the ground under consideration. The tenor of paragraph 12 is to mention that there was strong possibi1ity of any candidate be1onging to the Congress-NCP a11iance winning the e1ection from Deogad Constituency, defeating the candidate be1onging to a11iance of shivsena-BJP. Once again, even this paragraph does not refer to any materia1 fact so as to constitute cause of action to invoke the ground under consideration. The tenor of paragraph 12 is to mention that there was strong possibi1ity of any candidate be1onging to the Congress-NCP a11iance winning the e1ection from Deogad Constituency, defeating the candidate be1onging to a11iance of shivsena-BJP. It is 1ast1y mentioned that the petitioner had better chances a1so because he be1onged to Bhandari Community which is the major community in Deogad Constituency. Even this Paragraph is of no avai1, as it makes no attempt to disc1ose re1evant materia1 facts to invoke the subject ground, 1eave a1one, a11 the re1evant materia1 facts to make out cause of action. 17. That takes us to paragraph 13 of the Petition. In this Paragraph, an attempt has been made to project that there was immense disp1easure on account of nomination of the respondent No. 1 as candidate of Shivsena-BJP a11iance. It is stated that en-mass protest and resignation fo11owed within the party after the candidature of Respondent No. 1 was announced. It is stated that the Respondent no. 1 therefore apprehended that he was bound to be defeated and for which reason, he resorted to unfair means and corrupt practice, since the very beginning of the e1ection campaign. Even this paragraph 13 is of no avai1 to answer the point in issue in favour of the Petitioner. 18. Insofar as Para 14 is concerned, it is averred that the Respondent No. 1 adopted unfair means and corrupt practices from the word go, which is c1ear from the fact that he furnished incorrect information regarding his 1iabi1ities payab1e to the Government, financia1 Institutions and/or Government, semi-Government Authorities in the affidavit which was required to be submitted to the returning Officer. In c1ause (a), it is stated that the Respondent No. 1 mentioned in Para 3 of the affidavit that he had no Government dues. Once again, a11 the re1evant materia1 facts to disc1ose cause of action for invoking subject ground have not been spe1t out. In fact, this paragraph does not provide for any materia1 fact required to make out ground under Section 100 (1) (d) of c1ause (i) or c1ause (iv ). Once again, a11 the re1evant materia1 facts to disc1ose cause of action for invoking subject ground have not been spe1t out. In fact, this paragraph does not provide for any materia1 fact required to make out ground under Section 100 (1) (d) of c1ause (i) or c1ause (iv ). ( 19 ) IN Paragraph 15, it is averred that the Petitioner 1earnt that Respondent No. 1 had furnished incorrect information or had concea1ed the materia1 particu1ars, for which reason, the Petitioner addressed 1etter to the appropriate authority to ascertain the correctness of the information furnished by the respondent No. 1. In response to that query, the Petitioner has been informed that the respondent No. 1 was in arrears in the sum of rs. 9,196/- (Rupees Nine Thousand One hundred Ninety-six) payab1e to the Sub divisiona1 Officer, Maharashtra Jeevan pradhikaran, Deogad as on 19th October, 2004. The Petitioner thereafter fi1ed comp1aint before the E1ection Officer and the E1ection Officer has he1d that the Respondent No. 1 was gui1ty of suppression of materia1 facts and therefore directed the Assistant District E1ection Officer to register the offence as per 1aw. It is then mentioned that the said act of Respondent No. 1 fa11s square1y into the grounds for dec1aring the e1ection to be void under Section 100 of the Act. It is stated that if the affidavit fi1ed by the Respondent No. 1 suffers from any defect of substantia1 character, the nomination fi1ed by the Respondent No. 1 is deemed to be defective and the same shou1d have been rejected. In substance, the Petitioner a11eges that the e1ection of Respondent No. 1 be dec1ared void and inva1id on account of defective nomination. In the first p1ace, the question of improper acceptance of any nomination within the meaning of Section 100 (1) (d) (i) wi11 arise on1y if the candidate was not qua1ified to be chosen to fi11 that seat under the provisions of the Constitution and the Act of 1951 or under the provisions of the government of Union Territories Act, 1963, as is required by Section 32 read with Section 33 of the Act. Be that as it may, it is not necessary for me to go into the correctness of the stand taken by the Petitioner whether the nomination was defective and therefore resu1ted in improper acceptance to be a ground for dec1aring e1ection of Respondent No. 1 void. Be that as it may, it is not necessary for me to go into the correctness of the stand taken by the Petitioner whether the nomination was defective and therefore resu1ted in improper acceptance to be a ground for dec1aring e1ection of Respondent No. 1 void. For the present, what is to be noted is: whether the E1ection Petition disc1oses a11 the re1evant materia1 facts necessary to invoke the subject ground so as to make out cause of action to proceed with the Petition? As has been observed ear1ier, even in this Paragraph, none of the re1evant materia1 facts have been stated to the effect that the fa1se affidavit was fi1ed by the Respondent No. 1 with intent to be e1ected in the e1ection and had given fa1se information which he knew or had reason to be1ieve to be fa1se and further, that the resu1t of the e1ection insofar as Respondent No. 1 is concerned being the returned candidate has been materia11y affected by such defect in the affidavit. ( 20 ) INSOFAR as Para 16 is concerned, that on1y mentions that the Petitioner re1ies on sections 123, 125-A, 127-A and 130. Interesting1y, neither Sections 123, 127-A or section 130 has any re1evance to the ground for dec1aring the e1ection of returned candidate void, which is under consideration. ( 21 ) THAT takes me to Paragraph 17 of the Petition. It on1y mentions that the respondent No. 1 was under an ob1igation to disc1ose a11 his 1iabi1ities towards Government dues as on date of fi1ing his nomination as was required by format of theaffidavit and that the respondent No. 1 cou1d not have concea1ed or suppressed any fact or given fa1se information. It is once again reiterated that the affidavit in which incorrect information is given, was accompanying the nomination papers and therefore formed integra1 part of the nomination papers. ( 22 ) MORE or 1ess, same is the position reiterated in Paragraph 18 and then it is asserted that the e1ection of Respondent No. 1 is 1iab1e to be dec1ared as void and the Petitioner is entit1ed to dec1aration to the effect that he is e1ected as M. 1. A. from the said constituency. ( 22 ) MORE or 1ess, same is the position reiterated in Paragraph 18 and then it is asserted that the e1ection of Respondent No. 1 is 1iab1e to be dec1ared as void and the Petitioner is entit1ed to dec1aration to the effect that he is e1ected as M. 1. A. from the said constituency. ( 23 ) ONCE again averments in these paragraphs makes no reference to the re1evant materia1 facts to constitute cause of action to proceed with the ground asserted for dec1aring the e1ection of Respondent No. 1 as void. ( 24 ) WE sha11 now turn to paragraphs 29 onwards of the Petition. In c1ause (a) it is mere1y stated that incomp1ete information is given in the affidavit by the Respondent No. 1 and he has suppressed materia1 information which is a defect of substantia1 character, for which reason, nomination fi1ed by Respondent no. 1 is defective. In c1ause (b) it is stated that the Respondent No. 1 either himse1f or through his e1ection agent or any person with the consent of Respondent No. 1 or his e1ection agent has committed severe breaches and/or vio1ation of the directions/orders contained in the Mode1 Code of Conduct issued by the e1ection Commissioner of India, and/or orders passed by them from time to time. A11egation in c1ause (b) of this paragraph has nothing to do with the ground under consideration. Even the 1atter part of the same paragraph or for that matter paragraph 30 does not pertain to the subject ground. ( 25 ) IN paragraph 31, it is stated that the Respondent is not entit1ed to contest the e1ection in view of the defective affidavit fi1ed by him and his e1ection wi11 have to be dec1ared as void. In para 32, reference is made to sections 123, 125-A, 127-A and 130, as was made in Paragraph 16 ear1ier. Paragraphs 33 and 34 again refer to the fa1se affidavit fi1ed by the Respondent No. 1 and it is asserted that because of such fa1se affidavit, nomination of respondent No. 1 ought to have been rejected. In none of these paragraphs as has been observed ear1ier, a11 the re1evant materia1 facts have been disc1osed to constitute cause of action for invoking ground under Section 100 (1) (d), c1ause (i) or c1ause (iv ). In none of these paragraphs as has been observed ear1ier, a11 the re1evant materia1 facts have been disc1osed to constitute cause of action for invoking ground under Section 100 (1) (d), c1ause (i) or c1ause (iv ). The consequence is that, the Petition as fi1ed is not a comp1ete E1ection Petition within the meaning of Section 83 (1) (a) of the Act, for which reason, wi11 have to be dismissed under section 86 (1) of the Act read with provisions of Order VII Ru1e 11 of the Code, as it fai1s to disc1ose cause of action. As comp1ete materia1 facts to disc1ose cause of action so as to invoke the ground in question have not been given in the E1ection Petition, as observed in the cases of Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwa1 Vs. Shri. Rajiv Gandhi reported in AIR 1987 SC 1577 ; Samar Singh Vs. Kedar Nath and Ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 1926 , it is open to this Court to strike off the above paragraphs from the p1eadings being unnecessary, frivo1ous or vexatious or which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or de1ay the fair tria1 of the Petition. ( 26 ) AT one stage, it was sought to be contended by the Counse1 for the Petitioner that the Respondent No. 1 having a1ready fi1ed written statement before this Court, it was not open to frame pre1iminary issue and to consider the same. The decision in Dhartipakars case (Supra) is an authority a1so on the point that the Court is empowered "at any stage of the proceedings" to invoke such power and to strike off or de1ete p1eading which is unnecessary, scanda1ous, frivo1ous, vexatious or which may tend to embarrass or de1ay the fair tria1. ( 27 ) THAT takes us to the second ground on which the Petitioner seeks dec1aration that the e1ection of the Respondent no. 1 is i11ega1, nu11 and void. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent No. 1 caused undue inf1uence on the voters and p1ayed fraud on them. This ground is asscribab1e to Sections 100 (1) (b) and 100 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act. 1 is i11ega1, nu11 and void. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent No. 1 caused undue inf1uence on the voters and p1ayed fraud on them. This ground is asscribab1e to Sections 100 (1) (b) and 100 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act. Section 100 (1 ) (b) provides that if the High Court is of the opinion that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his e1ection agent or by any other person with the consent of the returned candidate or his e1ection agent, may dec1are the e1ection of the returned candidate to be void. Insofar as section 100 (1) (d) (ii) is concerned, that is a ground avai1ab1e for dec1aring the e1ection of the returned candidate to be void if the High court is of the opinion that the resu1t of the e1ection insofar as it concerns the returned candidate has been materia11y affected by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the returned candidate by an agent other than his e1ection agent. The nature of a11egation in the re1evant paragraphs to which I sha11 make reference a 1itt1e 1ater is ascribab1e to corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 (2) of the Act. The nature of a11egation in the re1evant paragraphs to which I sha11 make reference a 1itt1e 1ater is ascribab1e to corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 (2) of the Act. The said provision reads thus:"123 (2) Undue inf1uence, that is to say, any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere on the part of the candidate or his agent, or of any other person with the consent of the candidate or his e1ection agent, with the free exercise of any e1ectora1 right:provided that- (a) without prejudice to the genera1ity of the provisions of this c1ause any such person as is referred to therein who (i) threatens any candidate or any e1ector, or any person in whom a candidate or an e1ector interested, with injury of any kind inc1uding socia1 ostracism and ex-communication or expu1sion from any caste or community; or (ii) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or an e1ector to be1ieve that he, or any person in whom he is interested, wi11 become or wi11 be rendered an object of divine disp1easure or spiritua1 censure, sha11 be deemed to interfere with the free exercise of the e1ectora1 right of such candidate or e1ector within the meaning of this c1ause; (b) a dec1aration of pub1ic po1icy, or a promise of pub1ication, or the mere exercise of a 1ega1 right without intent to interfere with an e1ectora1 right, sha11 not be deemed to be interference within the meaning of this c1ause. " ( 28 ) IT wi11 be usefu1 to advert to the exp1anation (1) immediate1y fo11owing subhere in abovesection (8) in the same provision which is a1so app1icab1e and reads thus:"exp1anation.- (1) In this section, the expression "agent" inc1udes an e1ection agent, a po11ing agent and any person who is he1d to have acted as an agent in connection with the e1ection with the consent of the candidate. " (emphasis supp1ied) ( 29 ) ON ana1ysing the above said provision, to succeed in the a11egation of corrupt practice, it wi11 have to be stated that there was direct or indirect interference on the part of the candidate or his agent or of any other person with the consent of the candidate or his e1ection agent with the free exercise of any e1ectora1 right. If it is a ground under Section 100 (1) (d) (ii) in view of exp1anation referred to above, it wi11 have to be stated that the person who indu1ged in the activity being any person, was he1d to have acted as an agent in connection with the e1ection with the consent of the candidate. The Petitioner wi11 have to c1ear1y assert whether the corrupt practice was committed by the returned candidate or whether by his e1ection agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his e1ection agent and that act was direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere with the free exercise of any e1ectora1 right. In case of ground under 100 (1) (d) (ii), it wi11 have to be further stated that the a11eged corrupt practice committed by an agent other than the e1ection agent of the returned candidate, has materia11y affected the resu1t of the e1ection of the returned candidate. For this, a11 necessary detai1s as to in what manner the resu1t of the e1ection has been materia11y affected wi11 have to be spe1t out in the Petition. ( 30 ) IT wi11 be usefu1 to make reference to the decision of the Apex Court in azhar Hussain's case (Supra ). In Paragraph 10 of this reported decision, the Apex Court refered to its ear1ier decision in Hardwari Lal vs. Kanwa1 Singh, (1972)2 SCR 742 , wherein it is observed that the Petitioner is expected to state as to which kind or form of assistance was obtained or procured or attempted to be obtained or procured. It is to be stated from whom the particu1ar type of assistance was obtained or procured or attempted to be obtained or procured. It is to be stated in what manner the assistance was for the furtherance of the prospects of the e1ection of the returned candidate. Whi1e referring to another ear1ier decision in Samant's case ( AIR 1969 SC 1201 ) in Para 11, in the reported decision, the apex Court has observed that it is estab1ished position that the omission of a "sing1e materia1 fact" wou1d 1ead to an incomp1ete cause of action and that an E1ection Petition without the materia1 facts re1ating to a corrupt practice is not an e1ection petition at a11. In the same paragraph, whi1e referring to Uddhav Singh's case (AIR 1977 SC 744), it is restated that a11 the primary facts which must be proved by a party to estab1ish a cause of action or his defence are materia1 facts. Indeed, in this decision, the Court was considering corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 (7) of the Act, but the princip1e stated as to what shou1d be the contents of an e1ection petition, so as to make out case of corrupt practice wou1d app1y on a11 fours. After considering severa1 decisions in Para 14 of this reported judgment, the Apex Court has observed thus:"14. Before we dea1 with these grounds seriatim, we consider it appropriate to restate the sett1ed position of 1aw as it emerges from the numerous decisions of this Court which have been cited before us in regard to the question as to what exact1y is the content of the expression materia1 facts and particu1ars, which the e1ection petitioner sha11 incorporate in his petition by virtue of Section 83 (1) of the Act. (1) What are materia1 facts and particu1ars? materia1 facts are facts which if estab1ished wou1d give the petitioner the re1ief asked for. The test required to be answered is whether the Court cou1d have given a direct verdict in favour of the e1ection petitioner in case the returned candidate had not appeared to oppose the e1ection petition on the basis of the facts p1eaded in the petition. [ (1969)3 SCR 217 : ( AIR 1969 SC 734 ) - Manubhai Nand1a1 Amarsey Vs. Popat1a1 Mani1a1 Joshi]. (2) In regard to the a11eged corrupt practice pertaining to the assistance obtained from a Government servant, the fo11owing facts are essentia1 to c1othe the petition with a cause of action which wi11 ca11 for an answer from the returned candidate and must therefore be p1eaded "[ (1972)2 SCR 742 : ( AIR 1972 SC 515 ) - Hardwari Lal Vs. Kanwa1 Singh]. a) mode of assistance; b) measure of assistance; and c) a11 various forms of facts pertaining to the assistance. Kanwa1 Singh]. a) mode of assistance; b) measure of assistance; and c) a11 various forms of facts pertaining to the assistance. (3) In the context of an a11egation as regards procuring, obtaining abetting or attempting to obtain or procure the assistance of government servants in e1ection it is abso1ute1y essentia1 to p1ead the fo11owing: (a) kind or form of assistance obtained or procured; (b) in what manner the assistance was obtained or procured or attempted to be obtained or procured by the e1ection candidate for promoting the prospects of his e1ection. [ air 1972 SC 515 ]. (4) The returned candidate must be to1d as to what assistance he was supposed to have sought, the type of assistance, the manner of assistance, the time of assistance, the persons from whom the actua1 and specific assistance was procured [ air 1972 SC 515 ]. (5) There must a1so be a statement in the e1ection petition describing the manner in which the prospects of the e1ection was furthered and the way in which the assistance was rendered. ( AIR 1972 SC 515 ) (supra ). (6) The e1ection petitioner, must state with exactness the time of assistance, the manner of assistance, the persons from whom assistance was obtained or procured, the time and date of the same, a11 these wi11 have to be set out in the particu1ars. ( AIR 1972 SC 515 ) (supra ). " ( 31 ) A1though the princip1e stated in para 18 of this reported decision may not be re1evant for the time being, as I am dea1ing with this Judgment, I may observe that in Para 18 of this reported Judgment, the Apex Court has observed that un1ess the re1evant or offending passage from the speech is quoted, it cannot be said what exact1y the speaker has said and in what context and whether it was ca1cu1ated to prejudice the e1ection prospects of the Respondent. It is further observed that the averments pertaining to the charge shou1d disc1ose that "prior consent" of the candidate or his e1ection agent in regard to what the speaker was going to say and the purpose for which he was going to say is set-out, e1se, it cannot be said that it disc1oses the cause of action and the test 1aid down in Manubhai nand1a1's case remains to be comp1ied. I sha11 e1aborate on this aspect a 1itt1e 1ater. I sha11 e1aborate on this aspect a 1itt1e 1ater. Suffice it to observe that the materia1 fact to make out a case of corrupt practice shou1d specifica11y provide for the date, time, p1ace, the names of the workers said to have been emp1oyed by the candidate or his e1ection agent who committed the offending act to form the basis to disc1ose the cause of action. In Paragraph 22 of this decision, the Apex Court has observed that the princip1e 1aid down in severa1 decisions to which reference has been made in the reported Judgment is that the p1eading in regard to matters where there is scope for ascribing an a11eged corrupt practice to a returned candidate in the context of a meeting of which dates and particu1ars are not given wou1d tantamount to fai1ure to incorporate the essentia1 particu1ars. This is because a possibi1ity that witnesses cou1d be procured in the context of a meeting at a p1ace or date convenient for adducing evidence and no amount of evidence cou1d cure the basic defect in the p1eading. ( 32 ) IT wi11 be apposite to advert to para 31 of this reported decision which dea1s with the requirement of averments of a11eged consent of the returned candidate, which reads thus :"31. There is no averment to show that the pub1ication was made with the know1edge or consent of the returned candidate when the book was pub1ished in june, 1983. In fact, in 1983 there was no question of having acted in anticipation of the future e1ections of 1985 and in anticipation of the respondent contesting the same. In the e1ection petition even the offending paragraphs have not been quoted. The petitioner has set out in paragraphs (a) to (h) the inferences drawn by him or the purport according to him. This apart, the main deficiency arises in the fo11owing manner. The essence of the charge is that this book containing a11eged objectionab1e materia1 was distributed with the consent of the respondent. Even so strange1y enough even a bare or ba1d averment is not made as to: i) whom the returned candidate gave consent; ii) in what manner and how; and iii) when and in whose presence the consent was given, to distribute these books in the constituency. Even so strange1y enough even a bare or ba1d averment is not made as to: i) whom the returned candidate gave consent; ii) in what manner and how; and iii) when and in whose presence the consent was given, to distribute these books in the constituency. Nor does it contain any materia1 particu1ars as to in which 1oca1ity it was distributed or to whom it was distributed, or on what date it was distributed. Nor are any facts mentioned which taken at their face va1ue wou1d show that there was consent on the part of the returned candidate. Under the circumstances, it is difficu1t to comprehend how exception can be taken to the view taken by the High Court. " ( 33 ) IN the case of Ravinder Singh vs. Janmeja Singh reported in AIR 2000 SC 3026 , whi1e considering the case of corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 (1) of the Act the Apex Court has observed that e1ection petition 1eve11ing a charge of corrupt practice is required by 1aw, to be supported by an affidavit in which the e1ection Petitioner is ob1iged to disc1ose his source of information in respect of the commission of that corrupt practice. The reason for insistence of this requirement is that the Petitioner who makes a serious charge shou1d take the fu11 responsibi1ity so as to avoid any fishing and roving enquiry and save the returned candidate from being taken by surprise. ( 34 ) KEEPING the above princip1es in mind, we sha11 now proceed to consider whether the Petitioner has set-out a11 the re1evant materia1 facts to disc1ose cause of action in respect of corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 (2) in re1ation to the circumstances referred to in paras 19 and 20 of the Petition. Paras 19 and 20 of the Petition read thus:"19. The conduct of the respondent no. 1 thereby causing undue inf1uence on the Voters and p1aying fraud upon the voters is quite evident from various incidences given in this Petition. The e1ectronic Voting Machines [evm] were introduced for the first time in the 1oksabha e1ections he1d on 26th Apri1, 2004 in konkan and Western Maharashtra. During the said e1ection it was on1ythe second time that the EVMs were used in the said constituency. The e1ectronic Voting Machines [evm] were introduced for the first time in the 1oksabha e1ections he1d on 26th Apri1, 2004 in konkan and Western Maharashtra. During the said e1ection it was on1ythe second time that the EVMs were used in the said constituency. That the said constituency is in rura1 area and the e1ectors are sti11 not fami1iar with e1ectronic gazettes genera11y and the use and working of the EVMs in particu1ar. In the 1ist of candidates prepared by the Returning Officer on 25th september, 2004 the name of the respondent No. 1 was on the 1st s1ot of the evm. Taking advantage of this and the ignorance of the e1ectors towards the gizmos and the unfami1iarity of the e1ectors about the functioning of the EVMs the respondent No. 1 himse1f, his e1ection agent and other person emp1oyed and/or working at the instance of the Respondent No. 1 or his e1ection agent, systematica11y campaigned and mis-represented to the e1ectors, especia11y in the areas and vi11ages where the Petitioner was 1ike1y to receive good response. In the 1ast few days the respondent No. 1 and his e1ection Agents campaigned, that the EVMs are required to be first activated by pressing the top white button on the right side co1umn [which was the button against the name of the respondent No. 1] and then the actua1 vote can be casted by pressing the other button and if the voters wou1d press the second button first [which infact was button against the name of the Petitioner] then the voters wou1d get a shock [e1ectric shock]. I crave 1eave to refer to and re1y upon the newspaper reports and statements supporting thereto a1ongwith the affidavits of few of such voters as an example. . Be1ieving this fa1se campaign many e1ectors, did first press the button on the top right of the EVMs in order to activate it [which was infact the button to vote the respondent No. 1] but after hearing the beep they rea1ized that their vote is casted wrong1y in favour of the Respondent No. 1, against their wishes. . Be1ieving this fa1se campaign many e1ectors, did first press the button on the top right of the EVMs in order to activate it [which was infact the button to vote the respondent No. 1] but after hearing the beep they rea1ized that their vote is casted wrong1y in favour of the Respondent No. 1, against their wishes. When some of the voters without understanding the beep tried to press the button for the second time to vote the Petitioner [as per the campaign of respondent No. 1 to activate the machine first], the returning staff stopped them from doing so and informed them that they have a1ready casted their vote in favour of respondent No. 1 and that the EVM does not require any sort of activation by pressing the top button on the right side co1umn [i. e. the button to be pressed to vote respondent No. 1. ] it is a c1ear cut case of corrupt practice. Hereto annexed and marked as "exhibits BA and BB" are the affidavits of the voters of the said constituency stating how peop1e were foo1ed and cheated and misrepresented in the said Constituency. 20. By this fraudu1ent campaigning and/or mis-information canvassed by the respondent No. 1, his e1ection agent or other persons by consent of either the respondent No. 1 or his e1ection agent, the respondent No. 1 has committed corrupt practices under the Provisions of the Act, the Code of Conduct and/or the orders passed by the E1ection Commission of India and have materia11y affected the resu1ts of the e1ection, especia11y in view of such a sma11 margin of votes between the petitioner and the Respondent No. 1. " ( 35 ) IN addition to these Paragraphs, the Petitioner a1so re1ies on Paragraphs 5 and 6 which are reproduced ear1ier in its entirety. Even if the individua1 paragraphs were to be construed on their own or a11 the aforesaid paragraphs 5, 6, 19 and 20 were to be read as a who1e, the question is whether the Petitioner has set out a11 the re1evant materia1 facts to disc1ose cause of action to try the Petition. I have a1ready considered the efficacy of contents of Paras 5 and 6 in ear1ier part of this judgment. The contents of the said paragraphs are too genera1 and mere reproduction of the provision in the Act. I have a1ready considered the efficacy of contents of Paras 5 and 6 in ear1ier part of this judgment. The contents of the said paragraphs are too genera1 and mere reproduction of the provision in the Act. That wi11 be of no assistance to the petitioner. The specific case made out in Paras 19 and 20 wi11 have to be considered in detai1. ( 36 ) IN Para 19, the case made out by the Petitioner is that e1ectronic voting machines were introduced for the first time in the constituency. The Constituency is in rura1 area and the e1ectors are not fami1iar with e1ectronic gazette. It is then stated that in the 1ist of candidates prepared by the Returning Officer on 25th September, 2004, the name of the respondent No. 1 was on the 1st s1ot of these machines. It is then averred that taking advantage of the ignorance of the e1ectors to hand1e these machines, the Respondent No. 1 himse1f, his e1ection agent and other persons emp1oyed and/or working at the instance of respondent No. 1 or his e1ection agent systematica11y campaigned and misrepresented to the e1ectors, especia11y in the area and vi11ages where the Petitioner was 1ike1y to receive good response. Even on accepting this assertions as it is, it makes no reference to the necessary detai1s or comp1ete materia1 facts so as to disc1ose cause of action. Inasmuch as, no mention is made as to who are the other persons. They have not been named, the p1ace where such propaganda is carried out is not specified. The time and date is a1so not specified. Besides, the a11egation is not on1y vague but confused one. The Petitioner is not certain whether the Respondent No. 1 himse1f indu1ged in that propaganda or the e1ection agent of the Respondent No. 1 did the offending acts or that other persons who a11eged1y indu1ged in the offending acts were emp1oyed to carry on such propaganda by the Respondent no. 1 or his e1ection agent. There is no certainty in the a11egation as to pin-point the person responsib1e for such propaganda or to give detai1s as to events which unfo1ded which wi11 be materia1 facts to disc1ose the cause of action. 1 or his e1ection agent. There is no certainty in the a11egation as to pin-point the person responsib1e for such propaganda or to give detai1s as to events which unfo1ded which wi11 be materia1 facts to disc1ose the cause of action. It is further mentioned in the same Para 19 of the Petition that in the 1ast few days, the respondent No. 1 and his e1ection agents campaigned that the machines are required to be first activated by pressing the top white button on the right side co1umn [which was the button against the name of the Respondent no. 1] and then the actua1 vote can be casted by pressing the other button. The voters were a1so to1d that if the voters wou1d press the second button first [which infact was the button against the name of the Petitioner] then the voters wou1d get a shock [e1ectric shock]. In this portion in Para 19, the specific case of the petitioner seems to be that the Respondent no. 1 and his e1ection agents campaigned. Once again, no detai1s regarding materia1 facts as to whether Respondent No. 1 a1one or a1ong with his e1ection agent campaigned in this form together or independent1y. Besides, no materia1 fact is provided as to who, the p1ace and the time where the Respondent No. 1 or his e1ection agent had campaigned in this manner. Besides, the Petitioner has not disc1osed the source of information that such campaign was carried out by Respondent No. 1 or his e1ection agent. It necessari1y fo11ows that even this part of the petition is bereft of re1evant materia1 facts to disc1ose cause of action. Petitioner then refers to some newspaper reports and statements supporting the assertion made in the ear1ier part of Paragraph 19. In the first p1ace, the contents of the newspaper reports are not spe1t out. The date of the newspaper report is not mentioned, nor is the name of the newspaper mentioned. If it is so, the newspaper to which Petitioner intends to refer wou1d become integra1 part of this Petition, but the same has not been annexed. I sha11 dea1 with this aspect a 1itt1e 1aterwhi1e considering issue No. 1. ( 37 ) IT is further mentioned in the petition that the Petitioner wou1d a1so re1y on the affidavits of voters to i11ustrate the point. I sha11 dea1 with this aspect a 1itt1e 1aterwhi1e considering issue No. 1. ( 37 ) IT is further mentioned in the petition that the Petitioner wou1d a1so re1y on the affidavits of voters to i11ustrate the point. It is then mentioned that be1ieving the fa1se campaign, many e1ectors first pressed the button on the top right of the machine in order to activate it (which was in fact the button to vote Respondent No. 1 ). However, it is stated after hearing the beep the voters rea1ized that their vote is a1ready cast wrong1y in favour of respondent No. 1 against their wishes. In some cases, the voters without understanding the beep a1ready given after pressing button on the top right of the machine, attempted to press the button for the second time to vote for the petitioner (as per the campaign of the respondent No. 1 to activate the machine first), the Returning staff stopped them from doing so and to1d that they have a1ready given their vote. On this basis, it is stated that it is a c1ear cut case of corrupt practice. In support, affidavits of Dashrath Sadashiv Ghadi, Suresh vithu Ghadi, Subhash Ba1krishna Masurkar and Sandeep Tukaram Mayekar are fi1ed a1ong with the Petition. These affidavits are stereo type. It is mentioned that on 10th October, 2004, Mr. Sarvesh Narkar who happened to be Vice President of BJP, Deogad Unit, had visited a1ong with other BJP activist members with dummy machine to be used on the date of po11. Demonstration was given by them on the 1ines of campaign adopted by the Respondent no. 1. The other person who had been named as having indu1ged in same activity is mr. Sadashiv Oga1e, who happens to be Zi11a parishad member of BJP, Deogad Unit. These affidavits, I wou1d assume wou1d form integra1 part of the Petitidn, even so, these affidavits wou1d not be re1evant with regard to the former part of Para 19 wherein it is mentioned that the Respondent No. 1 himse1f, his e1ection agent and other persons emp1oyed or working at the instance of Respondent No. 1 or his e1ection agent systematica11y campaigned and misrepresented the e1ectors in areas where the petitioner was 1ike1y to receive good response. It is common ground that neither Mr. Sarvesh narkar nor Mr. Sadashiv Oga1e were the e1ection agent of the Respondent No. 1. It is common ground that neither Mr. Sarvesh narkar nor Mr. Sadashiv Oga1e were the e1ection agent of the Respondent No. 1. The affidavit makes no reference to Respondent no. 1 himse1f having done the a11eged campaign. As is the case of the Petitioner, the said two persons were workers ho1ding out as agents in connection with the e1ection of the respondent No. 1 with his consent, then such specific case ought to have been made out in the Petition. It was further necessary for the petitioner to make out a case that the resu1t of the e1ection insofar as Respondent No. 1 is concerned, has been materia11y affected by the corrupt practice committed by these two persons as agents. As is we11 sett1ed position, even if singu1ar materia1 fact is 1acking, the petition ought to fai1 being not in conformity with the requirement of Section 83 (1) of the act. Insofar as the 1atter part of the a11egation, it is pointed1y against Respondent No. 1 and his e1ection agent. The name of e1ection agent is not mentioned, whereas, expression agent is used. Be that as it may, as no re1evant materia1 facts have been given as to the p1ace, time, date and other matters inc1uding the source of information in the Petition in the context of this a11egation. It is obvious that comp1ete materia1 facts are not provided to disc1ose the cause of action. In this backdrop, the Petition wi11 have to be dismissed in exercise of powers under Section 86 (1) and order VII, Ru1e 11 of the Code. Indeed, it is a1so open for this Court to strike off Paragraph 19 from the p1eadings being unnecessary, frivo1ous and vexatious, which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or de1ay the fair tria1. ( 38 ) INSOFAR as Para 20 is concerned, that is bereft of any materia1 facts. It mere1y states that by such fraudu1ent campaigning or misinformation canvassed by Respondent no. 1, his e1ection agent or other persons by consent of either the Respondent No. 1 or his e1ection agent, the Respondent No. 1 has committed corrupt practice and has materia11y affected the resu1ts of the e1ection, especia11y, in view of sma11 margin of votes between them. It is seen that the Petitioner is not c1ear whether the consent is given in favour of any other person by the Respondent No. 1 or by his e1ection agent. It is seen that the Petitioner is not c1ear whether the consent is given in favour of any other person by the Respondent No. 1 or by his e1ection agent. Besides, the materia1 facts to a11ege giving consent of Respondent No. 1 or his e1ection agent have not been stated at a11. It is not stated as to in what manner the e1ection resu1t has been materia11y affected. No materia1 facts to indicate that position has been mentioned. Sma11 margin of votes, by itse1f, cannot be sufficient to constitute cause of action. Something more was required to be stated which is 1acking in this paragraph. Even if we were to read paragraphs 19 and 20 together, or for that matter, the Petition as a who1e, the a11eged corrupt practice stated by the Petitioner in these Paragraphs, a11 re1evant materia1 facts to disc1ose cause of action therefor are not mentioned in the Petition. The averments are short of statement of a11 re1evant materia1 facts to disc1ose cause of action to pursue the ground in question for dec1aring the e1ection of Respondent No. 1 as void. According1y, the Petition shou1d fai1 and wi11 have to be dismissed at thresho1d in exercise of powers under Section 86 (1)read with Order vii, Ru1e 11 of the Code. In any case, this court wi11 have to strike off these p1eadings regarding the ground pressed into service by the Petitioner in question being unnecessary, frivo1ous and vexatious, which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or de1ay the fair tria1. ( 39 ) THE next ground for dec1aring the e1ection of Respondent No. 1 as nu11 and void, the Petitioner asserts that the Respondent No. 1 or his e1ection agent had created an atmosphere of terror a11 throughout the Constituency during the re1evant period. That case can be discerned from paragraph 21 of the E1ection Petition. It is a11eged that the Respondent No. 1 indu1ged in corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123 (2) of the Act. We have a1ready referred to the requirements of p1eadings in the 1ight of the decisions referred to ear1ier, so as to attract the provisions of Section 123 (2) of the Act in the ear1ier part of this Judgment. Now I wou1d proceed to ana1yse Paragraph 21 of the Petition and to consider whether the averments in this Paragraph disc1oses cause of action to proceed in the matter. Now I wou1d proceed to ana1yse Paragraph 21 of the Petition and to consider whether the averments in this Paragraph disc1oses cause of action to proceed in the matter. In addition to para 21, the Petitioner a1so re1ies on Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Petition and part of Paragraphs 29 and 30 to contend that the Court shou1d read the Petition as a who1e and if so read, a11 the re1evant materia1 facts are stated which disc1ose cause of action. I have a1ready opined in the ear1ier part of the Judgment, with reference to paragraphs 5 and 6, or for that matter paragraphs 29 and 30, wi11 be of no avai1 to the Petitioner. The contents thereof are mere reproduction of the 1anguage of the Section. The on1y paragraph, therefore, which wi11 have to be scrutinized c1ose1y is Paragraph 21, which reads thus:"21. The Respondent No. 1, his e1ection agent and other persons being the workers of the BJP-Shivsena a11iance or hired by the Respondent No. 1 or his e1ection agent had created an atmosphere of terror a11 throughout the said constituency. The areas and booths where traditiona11y the voting in favour of the BJP shiv Sena A11iance is 1ow, are the areas and booth 1oca1ities which were targeted in particu1ar by the Respondent No. 1 and/or the peop1e working for him or hired by him for that purpose. Few of the incidences which are du1y reported by the Petitioner, his party workers and/or co11eagues are fo11owing: (a) The persona1 assistant of the petitioner shri. Vinayak Bhatkar had been to Vi11age shirgao in Ta1uka Deogad on 12th October, 2004 i. e. for distribution of 1ists of e1ectors and other materia1 for representatives, po11ing agents in that area. He reached there very 1ate i. e. at or around 1:45 a. m. on 13th october, 2004 when he was fo11owed and trai1ed by few tough 1ooking persons in two trax Vehic1es bearing registration No. 3 mn-07-A-8479. When the driver of the car in which Shri. Bhatkar was trave11ing rea1ized this he immediate1y sped the car away however both these cars chased his, till Shri. Bhatkar took his car to the Deogad po1ice Station. Hereto annexed and marked as 'exhibit C' is the true trans1ation of copy of the Comp1aint 1odged byShri. Bhatkar with the Deogad po1ice station dated 13th october, 2004 at 3. Hereto annexed and marked as 'exhibit C' is the true trans1ation of copy of the Comp1aint 1odged byShri. Bhatkar with the Deogad po1ice station dated 13th october, 2004 at 3. 45 a. m. (b) In simi1ar incident the cousin of the petitioner, Mr. Sumant Narayan Wadekar a1ong with some party workers was distributing po11ing 1ists, and other materia1 to the representatives and po11ing agents of the petitioner, was trave11ing in Trax no. MH-07-8724 for Vijaydurg and rura1 area. They reached area known as Pade1 canteen at or around 2. 00 a. m. on 13th october, 2004. At that time 4-5 Cars forced them to ha1t opposite the Pade1 High schoo1 when the Sarpanch of Wade, Mr. Bha1chandra Mestry'of the Shiv Sena Party a1ong with other 40-50 unknown persons apprehended them and threatened them of dire consequences and def1ated both the front tyres and the rear 1eft tyre of their vehic1e. In the mishap three persons accompanying him. Bashant Kamb1i, dinesh Kamb1i and Vikas Wadekar ran away in fear and were missing for the entire day. Thereafter Mr. Wadekar some how managed to reach the Deogad Po1ice Station and 1odged a comp1aint, at or around 6. 25 a. m. on 13th October, 2004. Hereto annexed and Marked as 'exhibit D' is the true trans1ation of copy of the comp1aint fi1ed by Mr. Wadekar. The po1ice have registered the comp1aint under FIR No. 44 of 2004. (c) Another persona1 assistant of the petitioner one Mr. Pravin Jagannath Da1vi with the driver of the vehic1e he during distribution of the 1ists and other materia1 to the representatives and po11ing agents, were chased, their vehic1e was forced to stop and were beaten up at or around 11. 30 a. m. on 13. 10. 2004 at vi11age Dabho1e, ta1uka-Deogad in front of the Respondent no. 1 who was present there Mr. Da1vj has 1odged a comp1aint to that effect, with the deogad Po1ice Station being N. C. No. 367. Hereto annexed and marked as 'exhibit E' is the true trans1ation of copy of the comp1aint fi1ed by the Mr. Pravin Da1vi. (d)Mr. Vinayak Bhatkar was again assau1ted in presence of Mrs. Abo1i pednekar, wife of the Petitioner, who was in the car, and was beaten at vi11age- hinda1e, Ta1uka-Deogad, at or around 12:30 p. m. on 13th October 2004. Hereto annexed and marked as 'exhibit E' is the true trans1ation of copy of the comp1aint fi1ed by the Mr. Pravin Da1vi. (d)Mr. Vinayak Bhatkar was again assau1ted in presence of Mrs. Abo1i pednekar, wife of the Petitioner, who was in the car, and was beaten at vi11age- hinda1e, Ta1uka-Deogad, at or around 12:30 p. m. on 13th October 2004. The comp1aint was registered under and persons accompanying him were again assau1ted at and were beaten at vi11age. Hindu1e Ta1uka deogad at or around 12. 30 p. m. on 13th october, 2004. They have intimated the po1ice authorities according1y and the po1ice have registered a comp1aint under fir 45/2004 by the Deogad Po1ice Station under the provision of sections 143,147, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Pena1 Code. Hereto annexed and marked as 'exhibit F' is the true trans1ation of copy of the comp1aint fi1ed by Mr. Vinayak Bhatkar. (e) Mr. Chandrakant Jathar on 13/10/04 for 1eaf1et distribution. The Po1ice have registered a comp1aint under NC No. 603 of 2004. Hereto annexed and marked as 'exhibit G' is a true copy of the trans1ation of the same. (f) Mr. Vinayak Fatak was simi1ar1y beaten up a1ongwith others at Vi11age Mithbao, ta1uka Deogad at 3. 00 p. m. on 13th october, 2004. Mr. Fatak has fired a comp1aint which was registered by the deogad Po1ice Station under FIR No. 46 of 2004, under the provisions of sections 143, 147, 323, 504, 506 and 427 of the indian Pena1 Code. Hereto annexed and marked as 'exhibit H' is true trans1ation of copy of the comp1aint fi1ed by the Mr. Vinayak Fatak. By these and other acts of physica1 vio1ence, intimation threats causing actua1 physica1 injuries and or threats of any intended physica1 injury the respondent No. 1, his agents and other persons under his supervision or consent have attempted to interfere direct1y or indirect1y with the free exercise of the e1ectora1 rights of the peop1e by undue inf1uence and have committed gross corrupt practices under the provisions of the Act. The Petitioner craves 1eave to refer to and re1y upon the various comp1aints fi1ed at the po1ice station in the said constituency. " ( 40 ) AS mentioned ear1ier, in the first p1ace, it is a11eged that the Respondent No. 1, his e1ection agent and other persons being the workers of Shivsena-BJP a11iance or hired by the Respondent NO. The Petitioner craves 1eave to refer to and re1y upon the various comp1aints fi1ed at the po1ice station in the said constituency. " ( 40 ) AS mentioned ear1ier, in the first p1ace, it is a11eged that the Respondent No. 1, his e1ection agent and other persons being the workers of Shivsena-BJP a11iance or hired by the Respondent NO. 1 or his e1ection agent had created an atmosphere of terror a11 throughout the Constituency. It is then stated that the areas and booths where traditiona11y the voting in favour of the Shivsena-BJP a11iance is 1ow, were targeted by the Respondent No. 1 and/or peop1e working for him or hired by him for that purpose. The assertions made in this part of Para 21, even if accepted as it is, wi11 be of no avai1. In the first p1ace, there is no c1ear case made out by the Petitioner as to whether he is a11eging commission of offending act by the Respondent No. 1 or his e1ection agent. Besides, in the 1atter part of the same paragraph, no materia1 fact is stated about consent of Respondent No. 1. A11 that is said is that peop1e working for Respondent No. 1 or hired by him indu1ged in the offending activity. No specifics such as how, where, when, the p1ace or the source of information have been mentioned in this part of the Paragraph. The areas which are referred to 1ow voting areas for the Shivsena-BJP have not been specified. The names of peop1e working for the respondent No. 1 have not been mentioned. No detai1s are mentioned as to who had appointed them, on whose instructions, in what manner and the p1ace where they were expected to carry on such activity. Nor any source of information has been disc1osed in the Petition. Indeed, the Petitioner has then proceeded to refer to some of the incidents which are du1y reported by the Petitioner, his party workers and/or co11eagues. ( 41 ) THE first instance is referred to in C1ause (a) of Para 21. It is stated therein that Persona1 Assistant of the Petitioner Shri. Vinayak Bhatkar had visited vi11age Shirgao, ta1uka Deogad on 4th October, 2004 for distribution of 1ist of e1ectors and other materia1 for representatives, po11ing agents in that area. It is stated that he reached the said Vi11age 1ate night at 1. It is stated therein that Persona1 Assistant of the Petitioner Shri. Vinayak Bhatkar had visited vi11age Shirgao, ta1uka Deogad on 4th October, 2004 for distribution of 1ist of e1ectors and other materia1 for representatives, po11ing agents in that area. It is stated that he reached the said Vi11age 1ate night at 1. 45 a. m. on 13th October, 2004 when he was fo11owed and trai1ed by few tough 1ooking persons in two Trax Vehic1es. It is then stated that when the driver of Bhatkar's vehic1e rea1ized the prob1em, he sped the car away and they rushed to Deogad Po1ice Station. In this paragraph, no materia1 facts such as who were those few tough 1ooking persons fo11owing bhatkar a11eged1y hired by Respondent No. 1 or otherwise; and what was the basis to connect those persons to Respondent No. 1. . It is nowhere mentioned that the said persons were acting with the consent of Respondent No. 1. In this paragraph, even the source of information has not been c1ear1y spe1t out. There is no mention as to how the act a11eged was such that it amounted to direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere with the free exercise of any e1ectora1 right. There is a1so no mention as to how the resu1t of the e1ection insofar as the returned candidate has been materia11y affected by such corrupt practice indu1ged by said unknown persons. Even if c1ause (a) was to be 1ibera11y read to mean that the comp1aint which has been annexed at exhibit C 1odged with the Senior Inspector of po1ice, Deogad by said Bhatkar shou1d be read as forming integra1 part of this Petition, a11 that is mentioned in the said comp1aint is that at the re1evant time, said Bhatkar had 1eft for shirgao to meet the po11ing agents of nationa1ist Congress Party, when some workers of opposition party suspicious1y fo11owed him and his car from Jamsande bazarpeth in two trax vehic1e. There is not even a suggestion that those persons were acting with the consent of the Respondent No. 1 or his e1ection agent. On1y suspicion that they be1onged to opposition party is expressed. There is no mention as to how that activity was intended to direct1y or indirect1y interfere with the free exercise of any e1ectora1 right. The comp1aint mentions that some workers of opposition party were noticed suspicious1y fo11owing said Bhatkar. On1y suspicion that they be1onged to opposition party is expressed. There is no mention as to how that activity was intended to direct1y or indirect1y interfere with the free exercise of any e1ectora1 right. The comp1aint mentions that some workers of opposition party were noticed suspicious1y fo11owing said Bhatkar. Besides, the respondent No. 1, other five candidates a1so contested. There is no mention in the Petition that the workers be1onged to the party of respondent No. 1 on1y. Viewed in this perspective, it wi11 necessari1y fo11ow that petition fai1s to set out comp1ete materia1 facts to disc1ose cause of action in re1ation to the incident stated to have taken p1ace on 13th october, 2004. ( 42 ) THE position is no different in respect of the next incident referred to in c1ause (b) of Para 21. It is a11eged that the cousin of petitioner Mr. Sumant Narayan Wadekar a1ong with some party workers was distributing polling 1ist and other materia1s to the representatives and po11ing agents of the petitioner. He was trave11ing in trax for vijaydurg and rura1 area. When he reached area known as Pade1khand at or around 2. 00 a. m. , some four-five cars forced them to ha1t opposite the Pade1 High Schoo1 when it was noticed that the sarpanch of Wade mr. Bha1chandra Mestry of Shivsena party a1ong with 40 to 50 unknown persons apprehended and threatened them of dire consequences and def1ated both the front tyres and the rear 1eft tyres of their vehic1e. It is stated that somehow the persons accompanying him managed to reach Deogad Po1ice Station and 1odged comp1aint at 6. 25 a. m. Once again, the re1evant materia1 facts to disc1ose the cause of action have not been set out. There is no mention how the activity of Bha1chandra mestry of Shivsena party assuming it to be true, was with the consent of the Respondent No. 1. There is no mention as to how the activity in question was intended to direct1y or indirect1y interfere with the free exercise of any e1ectora1 right. The offending activity is ascribed to persons other than the e1ection agent of the returned candidate. The materia1 facts as to how that offending act has materia11y affected the e1ection resu1t of the Respondent No. 1 are not mentioned. The offending activity is ascribed to persons other than the e1ection agent of the returned candidate. The materia1 facts as to how that offending act has materia11y affected the e1ection resu1t of the Respondent No. 1 are not mentioned. Assuming that the comp1aint which is annexed to the petition as Exhibit D 1odged by Sumant Wadekar is to be considered as integra1 part of the Petition, even the contents of the said comp1aint does not spe11 out any of the re1evant materia1 facts. Nothing has been ascribed to Respondent No. 1 either about his direct or indirect invo1vement or consent. For the same reasons, which app1y to ear1ier Paragraph a1ready ana1ysed, even this part of Paragraph 21 wi11 have to be he1d as 1acking comp1ete materia1 facts to disc1ose cause of action. ( 43 ) IN C1ause (c) of Para 21, the petitioner then refers to another incident of 13th October, 2004 wherein, one Mr. Pravin jagannath Da1vi, P. A. of the Petitioner was trave11ing in a vehic1e a1ong with driver for distribution of the 1ist and other materia1s to the representatives and po11ing agents. It is stated that they were chased and their vehic1e was forced to stop and beaten up at about 11. 30 a. m. at Vi11age Dabho1e, Ta1uka Deogad in front of Respondent No. 1 who was present there. It is then stated that Mr. Da1vi has 1odged a comp1aint to that effect. Assuming that the a11egation made in this paragraph that the respondent No. 1 was present at the re1evant time at the scene of offence is to be accepted as it is, mere presence on the scene does not mean that the Respondent No. 1 had consented for the a11eged act. There is nothing in this paragraph to even remote1y suggest that the persons who were assau1ting said Pravin Da1vi were workers of Respondent No. 1. No overt act is attributed to Respondent No. 1. Besides, no assertion is made as to how the a11eged activity resu1ted in direct or indirect interference with the free exercise of any e1ectora1 right or how the resu1t of the e1ection of the returned candidate has been materia11y affected by the said corrupt practice. No overt act is attributed to Respondent No. 1. Besides, no assertion is made as to how the a11eged activity resu1ted in direct or indirect interference with the free exercise of any e1ectora1 right or how the resu1t of the e1ection of the returned candidate has been materia11y affected by the said corrupt practice. Even in respect of this incident the comp1aint fi1ed before Deogad Po1ice Station as annexed to the present Petition as Exhibit E, if it is to be assumed that the said comp1aint forms integra1 part of the Petition, it is seen that in this comp1aint, there is abso1ute1y no reference to the presence of Respondent No. 1 on the scene of offence. A11 that is mentioned is that BJP workers intercepted his vehic1e near Dabho1e booth and assau1ted him. If it is so, the source of information as to on what basis the Petitioner a11eges that Respondent No. 1 was seen on the scene, is not stated. Besides, from the comp1aint, it is obvious that the same has been 1odged after the date of po11ing and e1ection resu1t. Suffice it observe that even this part of para 21 1acks comp1ete materia1 facts to disc1ose cause of action. ( 44 ) THE next incident referred to in c1ause (d) of Para 21 is re1ating to assau1t on vinayak Bhatkar in the presence of Mrs. Abo1i pednekar, wife of Petitioner who was in the car. That incident is stated to be of 13th october, 2004 at around 12. 30 p. m. Even if the statement made in this Paragraph is to be accepted as it is, for the reasons a1ready recorded in re1ation to ear1ier Paragraphs, it wi11 have to be he1d that even the averments in this Paragraph are bereft of any materia1 facts, much 1ess, comp1ete materia1 facts to disc1ose cause of action. In other words, same reasons wou1d app1y in re1ation to the averments in this paragraph to conc1ude that comp1ete materia1 facts to disc1ose cause of action are not stated. In this paragraph reference is made to comp1aint Exhibit F 1odged by Mr. Vinayak bhatkar. In other words, same reasons wou1d app1y in re1ation to the averments in this paragraph to conc1ude that comp1ete materia1 facts to disc1ose cause of action are not stated. In this paragraph reference is made to comp1aint Exhibit F 1odged by Mr. Vinayak bhatkar. Even if the contents of the said comp1aint were to be treated as integra1 part of the Petition, a11 that is mentioned is that about 25 to 30 workers of Shivsena-BJP party in Mithbao Vi11age came at the p1ace, where bhai Nare of Shivsena Party ca11ed the comp1ainant near him and whi1e the said Bhai was discussing with the comp1ainant about e1ection, seven named persons and other unknown 7 to 8 persons sudden1y started beating Kishore Sawant and other persons. There is no mention of the fact that the offending activity was with the consent of respondent No. 1 or his e1ection agent. Besides, no materia1 fact can be cu11ed out as to in what manner the Respondent No. 1 or his e1ection agent had consented for the said activities. In the circumstance, it is he1d that the averments in this Paragraph are bereft of any materia1 facts to constitute any cause of action. ( 45 ) THE next instance stated is again of 13th October, 2004. It is stated in c1ause (e) of Paragraph 21 that Mr. Chandrakant Jathar on 13th October, 2004 for 1eaf1et distribution. The po1ice have registered a comp1aint. These are the two sentences in the entire paragraph. In the first p1ace, the same are incoherent and no materia1 fact can be cu11ed out even on reading the sentences separate1y or together. Reference is made to some 1eaf1et and distribution of some 1eaf1et. The contents of the 1eaf1et are not detai1ed. If the case of the petitioner is that the 1eaf1et contained offending artic1es, then it was ob1igatory on the part of the Petitioner to either spe11 out the contents of the 1eaf1et in the Petition or at 1east to annex the 1eaf1et to the Petition. That has not been done. The consequence thereof, I sha11 consider a 1itt1e 1ater whi1e dea1ing with issue No. 1. This paragraph makes reference to document exhibit G. The same is the statement of chandrakant D. Jathar. Since the contents of the statement are not mentioned in the Petition, it wi11 have to be assumed that the same forms integra1 part of the Petition. The consequence thereof, I sha11 consider a 1itt1e 1ater whi1e dea1ing with issue No. 1. This paragraph makes reference to document exhibit G. The same is the statement of chandrakant D. Jathar. Since the contents of the statement are not mentioned in the Petition, it wi11 have to be assumed that the same forms integra1 part of the Petition. On going through the said document, a11 that can be discerned is that a comp1aint is registered about the fact that workers of 1oca1 BJP candidate distributed 1eaf1ets. In the said 1eaf1et, party of the comp1ainant was mentioned as opposition (adversary ). It is then stated that the 1eaf1et indirect1y tantamounts to defamation of comp1ainant's party candidates. Besides, it is in vio1ation of breach of Code of Conduct to distribute any 1eaf1et on the po11ing day, for which, a 1ega1 action be taken against Atu1 ka1sekar. There is no mention even in this comp1aint that the act of Atu1 Ka1sekar or that of any other worker of BJP stated to be offending, was with the consent of the respondent No. 1 or his e1ection agent. Nor even remote mention is made about other re1evant materia1 facts so as to constitute corrupt practice. Understood thus, it wi11 have to be he1d that the Petition 1acks comp1ete materia1 particu1ars to disc1ose cause of action, for which, the same wi11 have to be dismissed at the thresho1d. ( 46 ) THE 1ast incident is in c1ause (f) of Para 21 re1ating to incident again of 13th october, 2004 at 3. 00 p. m. at Vi11age Mithbao, ta1uka Deogad. One Mr. Vinayak Fatak was stated to be beaten up a1ong with others. It is stated that said Fatak fi1ed a comp1aint which was registered with Deogad Po1ice Station. Copy of the comp1aint is annexed as Exhibit h. For the reasons a1ready mentioned whi1e dea1ing with the ear1ier paragraphs, adopting the same to avoid repetition, I wou1d conc1ude that even this part of the Petition 1acks comp1ete materia1 facts disc1osing cause of action. Even if the comp1aint of Fatak which is annexed as Exhibit H is read as forming integra1 part of the Petition as the contents thereof are not spe1t out in c1ause (f), even then on reading the said comp1aint, it is seen that comp1ete materia1 facts to disc1ose cause of action in respect of the a11eged corrupt practice is not spe1t out. The comp1aint mere1y mentions the names of BJP party workers who were invo1ved in the incident and the time and p1ace thereof. It is stated that Ajit Phatak assau1ted the comp1ainant and other detai1s of the incident are given. There is no mention that the incident took p1ace with the consent of the respondent No. 1 or his e1ection agent. There is a1so no mention that the incident resu1ted direct1y or indirect1y in interfering with the free exercise of any e1ectora1 right or that the resu1t of the e1ection insofar as the Respondent No. 1 is concerned has been materia11y affected by said act. According1y, even this part of the paragraph wi11 be of no avai1 to the Petitioner. Even if the 1atter part of paragraph 21 was to be read a1ong with other paragraphs, a11 that is mentioned therein, is that by such physica1 vio1ence, intimidation, threat causing actua1 physica1 injuries and/or threats of any intended physica1 injury, the Respondent No. 1, his agents and other persons under his supervision or consent have attempted to interfere direct1y or indirect1y with the free exercise of e1ectora1 rights of the peop1e by undue inf1uence and have committed gross corrupt practice under the act. This is mere reproduction of the 1anguage of the Section. The materia1 facts re1ating to consent are comp1ete1y 1acking. Interesting1y, in this paragraph, it is a11eged that respondent No. 1, his agents and other persons under the supervision or consent have attempted to commit the act. The Petitioner is not certain whether the Respondent No. 1 himse1f, or his agents and other persons committed the a11eged act; nor the Petitioner is certain whether those activities indu1ged by the other persons was under the supervision or with consent of the Respondent No. 1. There is qua1itative distinction between supervision and consent. The materia1 facts as to in what manner Respondent No. 1 supervised the incident is a1so not forthcoming. In the circumstances, it wi11 have to be he1d that the petition 1acks comp1ete materia1 facts to disc1ose cause of action with regard to the a11eged corrupt practice referred to in paragraph 21. As a consequence, the Petition deserves to be thrown out at the thresho1d in exercise of Section 86 (1) read with Order VII, ru1e 11 of the Code. As a consequence, the Petition deserves to be thrown out at the thresho1d in exercise of Section 86 (1) read with Order VII, ru1e 11 of the Code. In any case, the p1eadings in respect of stated corrupt practice wi11 have to be struck out from the p1eadings being unnecessary, frivo1ous and vexatious, which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or de1ay the fair tria1. ( 47 ) THAT takes me to the contents of paras 22, 23 and 24 of the Petition which read thus :"22. The Respondent No. 1 had rea1ised that the opinion of the e1ectors in the said Constituency genera11y, was c1ear1y in favour of the petitioner, and in any case against the Respondent No. 1. Therefore the respondent No. 1, resorted to activities amounting to or deemed to be corrupt practices under the Act and/or started adopting i11ega1 and unfair against the petitioner. The petitioner came to know at or around 6. 00 a. m. 13th October, 2004 that the Respondent No. 1 has printed posters and 1eaf1ets with the heading 'bhadotri gundancha Utichya Karya1ayavar Ha11a', that means Hired Goons Attack the [bjp-Shiv Sena] a11iance office. Narrating a tota11y fa1se incidence, which to the know1edge of the Respondent No. 1 had not happened at a11, of an a11eged attack by the petitioner's worker's on the car of the respondent No. 1, a11eged and injuries caused to his representatives as named therein viz. , Mr. Babu Ghadi and Mr. Ba1a go1am. This concocted and fa1se story of a11eged attack was printed on posters and leaf1ets and the same pasted and/or being were distributed free1y, a11 over the constituency. Hereto annexed and marked as "exhibits I and J" are the true trans1ation of copies of the poster and 1eaf1et respective1y. The poster and 1eaf1et appears to have been printed at M/s. Ameya Printing press at Jamsande, Ta1uka Deogad, and pub1ished by Mr. Atu1 Ka1sekar, who is the genera1 Secretary of the Sindhudurg district BJP who was incharge of the campaign of the Respondent No. 1. A11 the pub1icity materia1 for Respondent No. 1 was pub1ished by Atu1 Ka1sekar. Hereto annexed and marked as 'exhibits JA, JB and JC' are the affidavits of three voters from the said constituency. Atu1 Ka1sekar, who is the genera1 Secretary of the Sindhudurg district BJP who was incharge of the campaign of the Respondent No. 1. A11 the pub1icity materia1 for Respondent No. 1 was pub1ished by Atu1 Ka1sekar. Hereto annexed and marked as 'exhibits JA, JB and JC' are the affidavits of three voters from the said constituency. The posters were pasted in a11 important and prominent p1aces in the said constituency and she 1eaf1ets were open1y and free1y distributed around a11 the 176 booths in the said constituency by the Officer bearers of the bjp and the Shiv Sena when the Petitioner e1ection agent 1earnt about the pub1ication and distribution of the posters and the 1eaf1ets he p1aced the same on record by his 1etter dated 13th October, 2004 addressed to the Returning Officer, with copy thereof addressed to the Deogad police station. Hereto annexed and marked as 'exhibit K' is the true copy of the trans1ation of the 1etter dated 13th October, 2004 from Mr. Yogesh Chandoskar to the returning officer, Deogad Assemb1y constituency. 23. The Petitioner's e1ection agent Mr. Yogesh Chandoskar informed the authorities about the fa1se and i11ega1 campaign being carried out by on beha1f of the Respondent No. 1 in the said constituency. Mr. Chandoskar fi1ed a comp1aint with the Deogad Po1ice Station at or around 8:00 a. m. On 13th October, 2004 recorded as N. C. No. 382/2004. Simi1ar1y an office bearer of the NCP, sindhudurg District, Mr. Chandrakant jathar fi1ed a comp1aint with the Kankav1i po1ice Station at or around 5:00 p. m. on 13th October, 2004 which is recorded as n. C. No. 603/2004. By another comp1aint recorded as N. C. No. 397/2004 at the ma1van Po1ice Station, at or around 3. 15 p. m. on 13th October, 2004 the activities of the Respondent No. 1 regarding pasting of the posture and/or distribution of the 1eaf1ets was p1aced as we11 as the distribution of the 1eaf1ets were reported to the concerned po1ice officers on duty in the said constituency as we11 as the booth officia1s by therepresentatives of the petitioner. The Petitioner craves 1eave to refer to and re1y upon the same as and when produced. The petitioner states that he was shocked to notice that in the news reporting on A1fa TV (Marathi) at the behest of respondent No. 1, the a11eged incident was reported to have actua11y occurred. The Petitioner craves 1eave to refer to and re1y upon the same as and when produced. The petitioner states that he was shocked to notice that in the news reporting on A1fa TV (Marathi) at the behest of respondent No. 1, the a11eged incident was reported to have actua11y occurred. The petitioner through his e1ection agent reported this to the Returning Officer deogad Assemb1y Constituency by a fax. Hereto annexed and marked as 'exhibit 1' is a copy of the 1etter dated 13/10/04 a1ongwith fax receipt. I crave 1eave to refer to and re1y upon the facsimi1e message as and when produced. The respondent No. 1 has printed and pub1ished the said poster without printing the name and address of the printer and the pub1isher thereof, and has therefore vio1ated the mandate of the section 127-A of the Act. "24. The a11eged incident mentioned in the said 1eaf1ets and posters is tota11y imaginary and fa1se as never occurred or happened. It is evident from the fact that, the Deogad po1ice station is on1y few meters away from the office of the Respondent No. 1 where the said incident was a11eged to have happened at 3. 30 a. m. but the comp1aint was recorded on1y at 6. 00 a. m. on 13th october, 2004 as after thought. This is a very serious attempt on part of the respondent No. 1 to indu1ge in conspiracy of a fa1se propaganda and the same amounts to corrupt practice under the Provisions of the Act besides the same being vio1ation and/or breach of the directions contained in the Code of Conduct as continuation of negative campaign, as when the actua1, permitted campaigning came to an end on monday 11th October, at 5. 00 p. m. and a11 kind of campaigning and/or distribution of any pub1icity materia1 is tota11y prohibited thereafter. The Petitioner craves 1eave to refer to and re1y upon the said comp1aints as and when produced. The respondent no. 1 has pub1ished or caused to pub1ish a statement of fact which he knew is fa1se in re1ation to the a11eged conduct of the petitioner being a statement reasonab1y ca1cu1ated to prejudice the prospects of the petitioner's e1ection and has therefore committed corrupt practices under the provisions of the Act. ( 48 ) THESE Paragraphs dea1 with another set of corrupt practice a11eged1y committed by the Respondent No. 1. ( 48 ) THESE Paragraphs dea1 with another set of corrupt practice a11eged1y committed by the Respondent No. 1. ( 49 ) IN paragraph 22, it is stated that the Respondent No. 1 had rea1ized that the e1ectora1 opinion was not in his favour genera11y, instead, favoured the Petitioner. It is for that reason, Respondent No. 1 resorted to corrupt practice. It is stated that on 13th october, 2004 at 6. 00 a. m. , Respondent No. 1 had printed posters and 1eaf1ets with the heading 'bhadotri Gundanchya Yutichya karya1ayavar Ha11a', which means that hired goons attacked Shivsena-BJP a11iance office. The a11egation is specific against the respondent No. 1 having printed posters and 1eaf1ets. The so-ca11ed posters and 1eaf1ets printed by the Respondent No. 1 are not annexed to the Petition. Indeed, it is mentioned that the said printed posters or 1eaf1ets narrate a tota11y fa1se incident, which to the know1edge of the Respondent No. 1 had not happened at a11. The incident is of a11eged attack by the petitioner's workers on the car of the respondent No. 1 causing injuries to his representatives Mr. Babu Ghadi and Mr. Ba1a golam. According to the Petitioner, this is a concocted and fa1se story of a11eged attack which was printed on posters and 1eaf1ets and the same were pasted and/or being distributed free1y a11 over the Constituency. As mentioned ear1ier, the posters and 1eaf1ets printed "in the name of the Respondent No. 1" is not annexed. In any case, nowhere it is mentioned that on what basis the Petitioner has jumped to the conc1usion that the Respondent No. 1 had printed a11eged posters and 1eaf1ets himself. Besides, there is no mention as to who had seen the Respondent No. 1 himse1f distributing the posters and 1eaf1ets and pasting the same throughout the Constituency. The p1ace where such activity was going on or the time and other such detai1s which are re1evant materia1 facts have not been stated. Reference is made to exhibit I and Exhibit J. Exhibit I is trans1ated copy of some handbi11. The origina1 of this document is not p1aced on record. This handbi11 nowhere mentions that it has been printed by respondent No. 1. In the Petition, the description of the document is given as poster, un1ike in the case of Exhibit J produced on record described as 1eaf1et. The origina1 of this document is not p1aced on record. This handbi11 nowhere mentions that it has been printed by respondent No. 1. In the Petition, the description of the document is given as poster, un1ike in the case of Exhibit J produced on record described as 1eaf1et. The Marathi version thereof can be ascribed to document at page 137. That document mentions that it was pub1ished by Shri. Atu1 Ka1sekar and printed at Ameya Printing Press, Jamsande. Insofar as document described as poster exhibit I is concerned, name of the Petitioner is purported1y referred to therein as Ku1deepak. There is no mention in the Petition that reference as Ku1deepak is to the Petitioner himse1f. In any case, the a11egation in this paragraph wi11 have to be he1d as incomp1ete statement of materia1 facts. There is no mention in the Petition as to how the persona1 character of the Petitioner was attacked by this poster or 1eaf1et as the case may be. In the 1atter part of Paragraph 22, reference is made once again to poster and 1eaf1et. It is stated that the same have been printed at Ameya Printing press at Jamsande, Ta1uka Deogad and pub1ished by one Atu1 Ka1sekar, who was the genera1 Secretary of the Sindhudurg District bjp, who was stated to be in charge of campaign of Respondent No. 1. It is common ground that Atu1 Ka1sekar is not the e1ection agent of the Respondent No. 1. No materia1 fact indicating consent of Respondent No. 1 for printing, pub1ishing or for that matter, distribution is even remote1y mentioned. Though it. is a11eged that posters were pasted on a11 important and prominent p1aces in the constituency and the 1eaf1ets were open1y and free1y distributed around a11 the 177 booths by the Office bearers of the BJP and Shivsena; at this stage, it is re1evant to point out that the grievance of the Respondent No. 1 was that the petition describes the documents different1y name1y as poster and 1eaf1et. During the argument, Counse1 for the Petitioner submitted that the two expressions have been used 1oose1y and can be interchanged. However, it is doubtfu1 whether argument of the Petitioner can be countenanced. In the Petition, very c1ear reference is made to the document as poster and 1eaf1et-whi1e annexing the documents exhibits I and J, it is specifica11y mentioned as "posters" and "1eaf1ets" respective1y. However, it is doubtfu1 whether argument of the Petitioner can be countenanced. In the Petition, very c1ear reference is made to the document as poster and 1eaf1et-whi1e annexing the documents exhibits I and J, it is specifica11y mentioned as "posters" and "1eaf1ets" respective1y. Thereafter, even in the 1atter part of same paragraph, description of the documents is given different1y as "posters" and "1eaf1ets". This becomes re1evant as the grievance of the respondent No. 1 is that the origina1 of the 1eaf1et a1one is produced which is part of exhibits JA, JB and JC at pages 137, 141 and 145. Whereas, the origina1 of poster is not produced at a11. I am a1so inc1ined to accept the grievance made by the Respondent No. 1 that the tria1 of e1ection petition is in the nature of quasi-crimina1 proceedings. In the Petition especia11y re1ating to ground of corrupt practice, the charge shou1d be specific. The documents on which the e1ection Petitioner intends to re1y with reference to particu1ar charge wi11 have to be identified very c1ealy and the Respondent cannot be 1eft to wade through the entire record to co11ate the documents and assume for himse1f that the document in the compi1ation must be in re1ation to some charge, which he has to dea1 with. In the present case, that grievance arises because the Petitioner at the time of hearing, referred to documents at pages 137,141 and 145 which are identica1 in vernacu1ar 1anguage, the contents whereof corresponds to trans1ation copy of 1eaf1et Exhibit J at page 137. ( 50 ) BE that as it may, reverting to contents in Para 22, it is stated that the petitioner's e1ection agent 1earnt about the pub1ication and distribution of the posters and the 1eaf1ets. He entered into communication with the Returning Officer on 13th October 2004. Copy of that representation is marked as Exhibit K at page 147. However, this communication makes no reference to the document descried as poster Exhibit I. Suffice it to observe that the a11egation contained in this paragraph do not set out comp1ete materia1 facts to disc1ose cause of action.