Judgment :- 1. This election petition is filed challenging the election of the 1st respondent from the 029 Kalpetta LA constituency to the Kerala Legislative Assembly, in the election, the polling for which was held on the 29th April, 2006. Petitioner, according to him, is the candidate who secured the highest number of votes, among the ten defeated candidates and the 1st respondent was returned with a margin of 1841 votes. 2. The 1st respondent has filed written statement, including preliminary objections to the maintainability of the election petition on different grounds, including that the pleadings are not verified as enjoined by law; the election petition filed alleging corrupt practices, does not disclose the material facts on the basis of which such allegation are made, to proceed with trial of the election petition under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the “ACT”, that neither the election petition nor the affidavit in Form 25 under Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the “C E Rules”, discloses the source of information regarding the material facts constituting any of alleged corrupt practices, regarding which pleadings are made by the petitioner, on the basis of information, not on his personal knowledge; that the election petition does not disclose any cause of action, to be put to trial; and that therefore the election petition may be rejected. 3. A reply affidavit is also filed by the election petitioner to the preliminary objections contained in the written statement. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the 1st respondent in relation to the preliminary objections. 5. An election petition is based on rights, which are purely the creature of a statute and a heavy onus lies on the election petitioner, seeking to set aside the election of a successful candidate, to make out a clear case for such relief, both in pleadings and at trial [See V. Narayanaswamy v. C.P. Thirunavukkarasu, (2000) 2 SCC 294 and R.P. Moidutty v. P.T. Kunju Mohammad, (2000) 1 SCC 481). While the court hearing the preliminary objections to an election petition is not to go into the evidence and merits of the case, the pleadings in the election petition have to be taken as a whole and by treating them as prima facie true, if it discloses a triable cause of action, the election petition would deserve to be tried. [See Harkirat Singh v. Amarinder Singh, AIR 2006 SC 713) In R.P. Moidutty (supra) and in Regu Mahesh v. Rajendra Pratap Bhanj Dev, 2004) 1 SCC 46, it was held that where the defect in the verification is pointed out by raising a plea in that regard in the written statement, but continues to remain without being cured, such defect would turn out to be fatal and the case is not liable to be tried. In V. Narayanaswamy (supra), it was laid down by the Apex Court that to plead corrupt practice as contemplated by law it has to be specifically alleged that the corrupt practices were committed with the consent of the candidate, that a particular electoral right of a person was affected and that it cannot be left to time, chance or conjecture for the court to draw inference by adopting an involved process of reasoning. The Apex Court laid down that where the alleged corrupt practice is open to two equal possible inferences, the pleadings of corrupt practice must fail. The charge of corrupt practice being quasi-criminal in nature, the court must always insist on strict compliance with the provisions of law and in an election petition, it is equally essential that the particulars of the charge of allegations are clearly and precisely stated in the petition. In Kamalnath v. Sudesh Verma [(2002) 2 SCC 410], it was laid down by the Apex Court that not only a concise statement of material facts and full particulars of the alleged corrupt practice should be pleaded, but an election petition, leveling a charge of corrupt practice shall also be supported by an affidavit in which the election petitioner is obliged to disclose the source of information in respect of the commission of that corrupt practice. [See also Dhartipakar v. Rajiv Gandhi (AIR 1987 SC 1577)]. [See also Dhartipakar v. Rajiv Gandhi (AIR 1987 SC 1577)]. In Shivajirao B. Patil Kawekar v. Vilasrao D. Deshmukh [(2000) 1 SCC 398], it was laid down that general averments suffering from deficiency of requisite pleadings and all the constituent parts of corrupt practice would not constitute a pleading of the full cause of action and shall have to be ignored and struck out. Such a petition suffers from the infirmity of non-compliance of Rule 94A read with Form 25 of the CE Rules. Having thus noticed the law, I proceed to consider the pleadings in this election petition. 6. Paragraphs 1 to 4 of the election petition contain general averments regarding the matters relating to the election, including the votes, affiliations and the result, while paragraph no. 5 is to the effect that the election of the 1st respondent is void under the various provisions enumerated therein. Paragraphs 6 to 23 of the election petition 7. Paragraphs 6 to 23 relate to allegations on the basis of Annexure I, stated to be a notice. The averments in those paragraphs are verified by the petitioner, in the election petition, as “are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief”, without stating as to which are the pleading on the basis of the knowledge of the petitioner and which are those on the basis of his information. In paragraph No.2 of the affidavit in Form 25, as regards these averments, the petitioner says that they “are correct and based upon the reliable information and personal knowledge provided to me”. The affidavit does not contain the source of such information. 8. It is stated in paragraph no.6 that Annexure I was printed and published by one Mr. Rasheed in the Mathrubhoomi Press, Kozhikode and that the Managing Director of Mathrubhoomi daily is Mr.M.P. Veerendrakumar, the father of the 1st respondent. However, it is not pleaded that they are the agents of the 1st respondent or than the alleged printing and publication was done with the consent of either the 1st respondent or his election agent. Barring that, it is averred that in Annexure I, it is stated that 35,000 copies were printed, “though its 1,20,000 copies were printed, published and distributed to the bona fide knowledge and information provided to the petitioner” (emphasis supplied). The source of such information is not disclosed. 9. Barring that, it is averred that in Annexure I, it is stated that 35,000 copies were printed, “though its 1,20,000 copies were printed, published and distributed to the bona fide knowledge and information provided to the petitioner” (emphasis supplied). The source of such information is not disclosed. 9. Paragraph No.7 of the election petition contains an isolated and bald statement of a general nature, that Annexure I notice was distributed by door to door campaign by the 1st respondent, his election agent and other agent and active workers. No details regarding the date, time etc. regarding such distribution are pleaded with any precision. None is named of having done it. But for stating that “the petitioner has got reliable information from all the nooks and corners…”, no specific plea to fix any wrong doer is made. Nor can the 1st respondent be fixed with the responsibility of having made such a statement, to put such an issued to trial. 10. Barring the aforesaid solitary sentence, paragraphs 7 to 12 of the election petition are regarding the contents of Annexure I and the petitioner’s version as regards them and his plea as to the possible effect of such contents on the voters of the constituency. 11. Paragraph No.13 contains an allegation that after Annexure I was printed on 25.04.2006 and 26.04.2006, its 1,20,000 copies were transported from Kozhikode to the residence of the 1st respondent at Puliyarmala in Kalpetta, by 11.30 p.m. on 26.04.2006; that the notices were split into small bundles of 80 to 100 each. This averment is again on the basis of information, at any rate, not on the basis of the personal knowledge of the petitioner. He has, however, not disclosed the source of such information. Material particulars regarding the transportation, except the date and time, have not been disclosed. The identity of the persons involved in the transportation is not pleaded. Who has seen the leaded bundling? The averments are vague and do not merit the trial for a quasi-criminal charge of corrupt practice under the Act. 12. Material particulars regarding the transportation, except the date and time, have not been disclosed. The identity of the persons involved in the transportation is not pleaded. Who has seen the leaded bundling? The averments are vague and do not merit the trial for a quasi-criminal charge of corrupt practice under the Act. 12. There is yet another averment in paragraph No.13, to the effect that “8 to 12 bundles each were distributed in the entire booths (143 numbers), of 029 LA Kalpetta Constituency, on 28.04.2006, between 8.00 a.m. and 5.15 p.m., by the 1st respondent, his election agent, polling agents, other agents, election workers and campaigners, with the consent and connivance of the 1st respondent.” This plea made without disclosing the names of the so-called agents, is followed by paragraph No.14 alleging that George Pothen and M. Balakrishnan transported the notice is Jeep KL-7N-6408 at 6.45 a.m. on 28.04.2006. However, there is no plea that they were the agents of the 1st respondent or were acting with his consent. Nor is the source of such information pleaded. 13. This is followed, in paragraph No.14 itself, by the plea that Ashraf, Mohammadali and Pariyangadan Alavikutty, there of the voters in Booth No.103 informed the petitioner that the notice received in Booth No.103 were distributed by T. Kunhimodieen, M. Saleem and P. Komu, “at 8.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. on 28.04.2006” along with other workers and campaigners of the 1st respondent, “as authorised and on behalf of the 1st respondent”. Authorised by whom? – The 1st respondent or his alter ego, his election agent? There is no plea that the said three are the agents of the 1st respondent. Specific plea as to consent, with the assertion in verification, as its truth, is since qua non to put such issue to trial. Otherwise, the one who is accused will be deprived of a fair trial. 14. Paragraph No.14 contains the further plea that the petitioner is informed by Saji, Prabhakaran and others that Ealias, C.M.Iype and Narayanan and other workers and campaigners of the 1st respondent, distributed the notices to various houses in Booth No.120 “between 8.00 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. on 28.04.2006,” “as authorized and on behalf of the 1st respondent”. 14. Paragraph No.14 contains the further plea that the petitioner is informed by Saji, Prabhakaran and others that Ealias, C.M.Iype and Narayanan and other workers and campaigners of the 1st respondent, distributed the notices to various houses in Booth No.120 “between 8.00 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. on 28.04.2006,” “as authorized and on behalf of the 1st respondent”. Similarly, the averments in paragraph No.15 are to the effect that Annexure I notice were distributed at Booth No.121 by Surendran, K. Ramesan, C.P. Balan Nair, along with other workers and campaigners of the 1st respondent, “as authorised and on behalf of the 1st respondent” at “8 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. on 28.04.2006”. A.K. Venu, Sreenivasan and Jayan K.A. are alleged to have informed the petitioner about the receipt of Annexure I from the aforesaid persons. The pleading in paragraph No.17 is to the effect that the petitioner is informed by K. Pocker, Vijaya Raghavan and Sibi Arakkaparambil that Annexure I notices were served upon their residential houses by Valiyaparaclal Vijayan and Baby along with other workers and campaigners of the 1st respondent as authorised and on behalf of the 1st respondent. The question that arises is as to whether there is specific plea of consent by the candidate or his election agent. The consequences that such a finding can bring necessarily exclude any allowance in favour of the petitioner. There is no plea of a cardinal component that would constitute the cause of action to put the election petition to trial, namely, a specific plea as to consent. As already noticed, specific plea as to consent, the prima facie truth of which is on the basis of the verification, as its truth, is sine qua non to put such issue to trial. Bereft of that, the 1st respondent is not liable to face trial of such an issue. 15. It is alleged in paragraph No.16 that small bundles of Annexure I notices consisting of 80 to 100 numbers were transported at 6.40 a.m. on 28.04.2006 in Jeep No.KL-12-2849 from the residence of the 1st respondent to Kavumandham town by T.V. Jose and Vijayan Cherukara. They are not stated to be agents of the 1st respondent or persons acting with his consent. However, there is no plea that the said persons were agents of the 1st respondent or acting with due consent. They are not stated to be agents of the 1st respondent or persons acting with his consent. However, there is no plea that the said persons were agents of the 1st respondent or acting with due consent. Hence, necessary material facts are not pleaded to put any such issue to trial as a corrupt practice under the Act. 16. It is further alleged in paragraph No.16 that the notice which are alleged to have been so transported are averred to have been received and distributed at Booth Nos. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 of Thariyode Grama Panchayat by the agents, campaigners and workers of the 1st respondent. This part of the pleading also does not disclose a cause of action with material facts being pleaded. 17. Thankachan, Kripesh and Joseph along with other campaigners and workers of the 1st respondent are alleged to have distributed Annexure I notices, for and no behalf of the 1st respondent, as duly authorised by the 1st respondent, at Booth No.24 and that the petitioner is informed about the receipt of the said notices by Puthuyaparambil Thomas, Madathil Prakashan and Joby Thekkekunnel. This plea discloses the necessary ingredients to constitute a corrupt practice, to be put to trial. However, in view of the cryptic verification of the election petition and the fact that the affidavit in Form 25 does not commend acceptance, following the mandate of law, the cause of action disclosed by the aforesaid pleadings cannot be put to trial. 18. Paragraph No.18 contains a general statement that Annexure I notices were distributed to all other booths and almost all hourse in Thariyode Panchayat by the agents, campaigners and election agents of the 1st respondent, for and on behalf of the 1st respondent and the petitioner has reliable information and knowledge about such distribution. No material facts of any corrupt practice are specifically pleaded in the said paragraph. 19. It is alleged in paragraph No. 19 that K.K. Hamsa and chathukutty, the election agents of the 1st respondent collected bundles of Annexure I notices from the residence of the 1st respondent at 7.00 a.m. on 28.04.2006, in Maruti Van No.KL-12-C-4046 and the said two persons distributed the said notices to Booth Nos. 80, 81, 82, 82A and 83 of Muttil Grama Panchayat. 80, 81, 82, 82A and 83 of Muttil Grama Panchayat. This only means that the bundles were delivered in the said area by the said persons, since it is the further plea that the distribution of Annexure I notices to different houses at Booth No.80 were by V. Ganeshan along with other workers and campaigners of the 1st respondent as authorised and on behalf of the 1st respondent and that the petitioner is informed by Vijayan Nalini, Jyothish, Thankachan and other voters that the notices were delivered to them by the aforesaid v. Ganeshan and Noushad along with “other workers and campaigners of the 1st respondent, as authorised and on behalf of the 1st respondent”. The petitioner alleges in paragraph No.20 that Annexure I notices were distributed at Booth No. 82 by Raju along with other workers and campaigners “of the 1st respondent, as authorised and on behalf of the 1st respondent” at “8.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. on 28.04.2006”. He pleads to have been informed of such distribution by Chandra Das, Divakaran, Thomas and several other voters. The further plea in that paragraph is about the alleged distribution of Annexure I notices by P. Kochumathew and O.E. Kasim along with other workers and campaigners “of the 1st respondent, as authorised and on behalf of the 1st respondent’ at “8.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. on 28.04.2006” and that the petitioner has such information from P. Sasi, K. Gopalakrishnan and many other voters. Here again, there is no plea that the said Ganeshan, Noushad, Raju, P. Kochumathew and O.E. Kasim are the agents of the 1st respondent or were acting with the consent of the 1st respondent or his election agent. Hence, the pleading in paragraphs 19 and 20 also do not constitute the necessary cause of action, to be put to trial. 20. In paragraph No.21, the petitioner alleges to have been informed by several voters of Kalpetta Municipality, including Krishnankutty and Pulickal Mohammed Ali about the receipt of Annexure I notices. According to the petitioner, Annexure I notices were distributed in all the booths of Kalpetta Municipality in five autorickshaws with the registration numbers stated in the said paragraph and from bicycles. In paragraph No.21, the petitioner alleges to have been informed by several voters of Kalpetta Municipality, including Krishnankutty and Pulickal Mohammed Ali about the receipt of Annexure I notices. According to the petitioner, Annexure I notices were distributed in all the booths of Kalpetta Municipality in five autorickshaws with the registration numbers stated in the said paragraph and from bicycles. It is alleged that U.A. Khader, Madayil Latheef, P. Rajan accompanied autorickshaws with numbers KL-12-3010, KL-12-6772 and KL-12-937 respectively and that all the said persons “with other election workers and campaigners of the 1st respondent have entrusted Annexure I notices to the L.D.F leaders of entire booths of Kalpetta Municipality between 6.20 a.m. and 7.40 a.m. on 28.04. 2006”. The pleading till that is only regarding the carrying and making available the notices for distribution. The further plea is that the notices were distributed to almost all hourses. But, neither are the persons involved in the door to door distribution named in the election petition, nor are they, or the afore-named persons characterized as agents or persons acting with the consent of the 1st respondent or his election agent. So much so, there is no triable corrupt practice pleaded with necessary material facts in paragraph No.21 of the election petition. 21. Though in paragraph No.22 it is pleaded that the distribution of Annexure I notices in the panchayats named therein was also by the election agent of the 1st respondent, the source of such information has not been pleaded and the petitioner does not have a case that he has personal knowledge of that fact. The averments in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the election petition regarding the distribution of Annexure I notices are made in a general manner without specifically providing any of the material facts. So much so, the pleadings in paragraphs 22 and 23 do not contain sufficient materials on the basis of which a cause of action is disclosed to put the election petition to trial. 22. Hence, this election petition cannot be put to trial on the basis of the pleadings in paragraph 6 to 23 thereof. Paragraph 24 of the election petition 23. 22. Hence, this election petition cannot be put to trial on the basis of the pleadings in paragraph 6 to 23 thereof. Paragraph 24 of the election petition 23. The averment in paragraph 24 of the election petition are verified by the petitioner, in the election petition, as “are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief”, without stating as to which are the pleadings on the basis of the knowledge of the petitioner and which are those on the basis of his information. In paragraph No.4 of the affidavit in Form 25, as regards these averments, the petitioner says that “I have reliable and correct information and evidence to prove the above statement”. The affidavit does not contain the source of such information. That apart, the pleading in paragraph 24 is a bald statement with no material facts at all. 24. Hence, the averments in paragraph 24 do not deserve to be put to trial. Paragraph 25 and 26 of the election petition 25. The averments in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the election petition are verified by the petitioner, in the election petition, as “are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief”, without stating as to which are the pleadings on the basis of the knowledge of the petitioner and which are those on the basis of his information. In paragraph No.5 of the affidavit in Form 25, as regards these averments, the petitioner says that “I have got reliable information, knowledge and evidence to establish the statements made in the above paragraph of the Election Petition”. The affidavit does not contain the source of such information. 26. The decision of the Apex Court in Rajendra Singh Yadav v. Chandra Sen and Others (AIR 1979 SC 882) is authority for the proposition that sufficient material facts have to be pleaded regarding the identity of the persons transported and the other facts relating to such transportation. The Apex Court held in paragraphs 10 and 12 of that judgment that an election petition, lacking in such pleadings regarding material facts, is not entitled to be tried, in as much as the election petitioner would not be entitled to lead evidence in the absence of specific pleading. 27. The Apex Court held in paragraphs 10 and 12 of that judgment that an election petition, lacking in such pleadings regarding material facts, is not entitled to be tried, in as much as the election petitioner would not be entitled to lead evidence in the absence of specific pleading. 27. Jeep No. KL-12A-279 driven by Jonachan, Jep No. KL-12-2781 of Faisal, Authorickshaw No. KL-12-A-2741, Omni Van No. KL-12-24, Jeep No. KL-12-A-2907 driven by M.K. Narayanan, Jeep No. KL-12-A-7462 used by R.Ramachandran, Jeep No.KL-12-2125 driven by Anil, Jeep bearing No.KL-12-A-2118 driven by vinu, Jeep bearing No.KL-12-A-2118 driven by Vinu, Jeep No. KL-12-A-981 driven by Koya and Autorickshaw No.KL-9-H-6699 driven by K.G. Balan are alleged to have been put to use to provide free transportation for the voters to the different booths mentioned in paragraph 25. However, the date and time of such user are not mentioned. The locations from which the voters were allegedly transported are not mentioned. The non-mentioning of the date and time of such alleged transport of voters assumes further importance because the petitioner has a specific plea that on the polling day (29.04.2006), “Jeep No. KL-12-8214 Mr. Muhammed, S/o. Moideenkutty, Mampetta House, Thazhe Arappatta, Meppadi, Kalpetta, Wynad District was the driver of the said Jeep. He was a transported electors to and from Booth No.98 & 99 falling in Muppained Grama Panchayat…”. Whatever the petitioner means by the afore-quoted pleading, it is certain that in the absence of any date and time being pleaded regarding the use of the other vehicles, the only vehicle about which reference is made, as regards transportation of elections is KL-12-8214. That part, there is no plea in paragraph 25 of the identity of some of the electors who were allegedly provided with free transport, to attract Section 123 (5) of the Act. To attract Section 123(5), the transpiration must be for the purpose of the poll. The averments in paragraph 26 are of general nature with no material facts. The pleadings in paragraphs 25 and 26, if put to trial, would only lead to a rowing enquiry which is impermissible in the trial of an election petition. 28. For the aforesaid reasons, this election petition cannot be put to trial on the basis of the pleadings in paragraphs 25 and 26. Paragraphs 27 and 28 of the election petition 29. 28. For the aforesaid reasons, this election petition cannot be put to trial on the basis of the pleadings in paragraphs 25 and 26. Paragraphs 27 and 28 of the election petition 29. Paragraph No.27 contains the averments that the name of the publisher shown on the face of Annexure I is a fictitious entry and the first respondent has therefore committed an electoral offence under Section 127A of the Act. The averments in paragraph 28 are general statements with no material particular at all. The averments in those paragraphs are verified by the petitioner, in the election petition, as “are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief”, without stating as to which are the pleadings on the basis of the knowledge of the petitioner and which are those on the basis of his information. Obviously, they not disclosing any corrupt practice, the election petitioner has chosen not to refer to the pleadings in the said paragraphs in the election petition in his affidavit in Form 25. Those pleadings are insufficient for the trial of an election petition. 30. Hence, this election petition cannot be put to trial on the basis of the pleadings in paragraphs 27 and 28. Paragraph 29 of the election petition 31. The pleadings in paragraph 29 relate to allegations on the basis on Annexure II, stated to be a news item. The averments in that paragraph are verified by the petitioner, in the election petition, as “are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief”, without stating as to which are the pleadings on the basis of the knowledge of the petitioner and which are those on the basis of his information. In paragraph No.7 of the affidavit in Form 25, as regards these averments, the petitioner says that they “are also true and correct, to my information”. The affidavit does not contain the source of such information. 32. The complaint of the petitioner in paragraph 29 is regarding a news item published in the Mathrubhumi Daily. According to the petitioner, that news item is baseless and false and was published at the instance of the 1st respondent, for and on behalf of him, by the Managing Director of Mathrubhumi Daily, namely, M.P. Veerendrakumar, the father of the 1st respondent. According to the petitioner, that news item is baseless and false and was published at the instance of the 1st respondent, for and on behalf of him, by the Managing Director of Mathrubhumi Daily, namely, M.P. Veerendrakumar, the father of the 1st respondent. Barring the statements in paragraph 29 that the statements in Annexure II are false and baseless, there is absolutely no averment that the contents of Annexure II are in relation to the personal character of the petitioner. He pleads that he ought to have been given sufficient opportunity to explain the real facts and Annexure – II containing criticism of some of the actions attributed to him in connection with the alleged cancellation of certain projects ought not to have been published on the day prior to the election. That apart, barring the allegation that the Managing Director of that news paper is the father of the 1st respondent, there is no plea that the publication is by the 1st respondent or his agent or that he or his election agent had consented to any such publication. 33. I do not find any corrupt practice being made out by the pleadings in paragraph 29 of the election petition, which therefore do not disclose any cause of action. Paragraphs 30 and 31 of the election petition 34. Paragraphs 30 and 31 relate to allegations regarding certain meetings. The averments in those paragraphs are verified by the petitioner, in the election petition, as “are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief”, without stating as to which are the pleadings on the basis of the knowledge of the petitioner and which are those of his information. In paragraph No.9 of the affidavit in form 25, as regards these averments, the petitioner says that the said statements “are also correct”, without disclosing whether he speaks of his personal knowledge or on the basis of information and, if based on information, as to what is the source. 35. According to the petitioner, there were proceedings before the Lok Ayukta resulting in the issuance of a notice to him, however that much was made of those proceedings in the public meetings on behalf of the 1st respondent in which statements were allegedly made that Lok Ayukta had issued directions for the arrest and production of the petitioner on 6.6.2006. According to the petitioner, there were proceedings before the Lok Ayukta resulting in the issuance of a notice to him, however that much was made of those proceedings in the public meetings on behalf of the 1st respondent in which statements were allegedly made that Lok Ayukta had issued directions for the arrest and production of the petitioner on 6.6.2006. It is alleged that there were public utterance that the petitioner would be arrested and detained and therefore, even if elected, the people would be forced to visit their MLA in the Central Prison. The issuance of notice by the Lok Ayukta or even the issuance of an arrest warrant by the Lok Ayukta, would not, by itself, constitute an allegation as to the conduct of the petitioner relatable to his personal character. So much so, even assuming that there were utterances in the public meetings that warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner, that would not, by itself, constitute a corrupt practice. 36. That apart, the pleadings are conspicuously vague, in the sense that, many material facts have not been disclosed. Though certain persons are named as those who had informed the petitioner about the public speeches, there is no proper plea that the persons who spoke were either the agents or persons acting with the consent of the 1st respondent or his election agent. 37. The pleadings in paragraphs 30 and 31 do not, therefore constitute any triable cause of action of a corrupt practice. Paragraph 32 of the election petition 38. The averments in paragraph No.32 relate to allegations on the basis of Annexure III, stated to be a news item. The averments in that paragraph are verified by the petitioner, in the election petition, as “are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief”, without stating as to which are the pleadings on the basis of the knowledge of the petitioner and which are those on the basis of his information. In paragraph No.7 of the affidavit in Form 25, as regards these averments, the petitioner says that they “are also true and correct, to my information”. The affidavit does not contain the source of such information. 39. In paragraph No.7 of the affidavit in Form 25, as regards these averments, the petitioner says that they “are also true and correct, to my information”. The affidavit does not contain the source of such information. 39. As noticed in relation to Annexure II, there is no manner in which the 1st respondent could be connected, in terms of law as enjoined by Section 123(4) of the Act to the publication of Annexure III, even assuming that its contents affect the personal character of the petitioner. The 1st respondent is alleged to be the Director of an electronic media institution and his father is stated to be the Managing Director of the Mathrubhumi Daily. But, there is no plea that the publication was made by an agent or with the consent of the 1st respondent or his election agent. 40. Hence, the pleadings in paragraph No.32 do not constitute any cause of action, to be tried. Paragraph 33 of the election petition 41. The averments in paragraph No.33 relate to allegations on the basis of Annexure, IV, stated to be a news item. The averments in the said paragraph are verified by the petitioner, in the election petition, as “are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief”, without stating as to which are the pleadings on the basis of the knowledge of the petitioner and which are those on the basis of his information. In paragraph No.7 of the affidavit in Form 25, as regards these averments, the petitioner says that they “are also true and correct, to my information”. The affidavit does not contain the source of such information. 42. As noticed in relation to Annexures II and III, there is no manner in which the 1st respondent could be connected, in terms of law as enjoined by Section 123(4) of the Act to the publication of Annexure IV, even assuming that its contents affect the personal character of the petitioner. Annexure IV is allegedly published in Deshabhimani Daily for and on behalf of the C.P.I(M) State committee, which according to the petitioner, is the “chunk constituent of LDF”. The petitioner contends that the said publication in the nature of a personal talk of the 1st respondent is “with the deliberate and malafide intention to cause harassment to the petitioner and thereby to secure undue advantage by the 1st respondent. The petitioner contends that the said publication in the nature of a personal talk of the 1st respondent is “with the deliberate and malafide intention to cause harassment to the petitioner and thereby to secure undue advantage by the 1st respondent. The said pleading does not contain even an allegation that Annexure IV amounts to publication of a statements of fact in relation to the personal character or conduct of the petitioner. It also does not, in any manner, show any relationship of agency or consent as contemplated by Section 123(4) of the Act. Still further, there is no plea as to the circulation of Annexure IV to constitute its publication. Nor is there any plea that it was circulated among the voters or even in the locality. 43. Therefore, the pleadings in paragraph No.33 do not constitute any triable cause of action. Paragraph No. 31 of the election petition 44. The allegations in paragraph No.34, are made with reference to Section 123(1)(A)(b)(ii). The averments in that paragraph are verified by the petitioner, in the election petition, as “are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief”, without stating as to which are the pleadings on the basis of the knowledge of the petitioner and which are those on the basis of his information. In paragraph No.6 of the affidavit in Form 25, as regards these averments, the petitioner says that the said statements “are also correct to my information”, without disclosing as to what is the source of such information. 45. The allegation is that the 1st respondent visited Soorymbom – thurakkodukunnu Adivasi Colony at 4.00 p.m. on 28.04.2006 and paid Rs.300/- each to 60 voters, which fact was revealed to the petitioner by Valiyakaruppan Mooppan, who also received Rs.300/- from the 1st respondent. The further allegation is that the 1st respondent distributed at the rate of Rs.250/- to 20 voters in Kappuvayal Kallattukunnu Adivasi Colony. Though it is stated that this incident was informed by C.K. Babu who witnessed and received Rs.250/- among the other voters, the time and date of the alleged payments are not pleaded. It is further alleged that the 1st respondent distribution at the rate of Rs.300/- to each voter at Chennilode Santhinagar Paniya Colony at 6.15 p.m. on 28.04.2006, which fact was informed to the petitioner by Beena. It is further alleged that the 1st respondent distribution at the rate of Rs.300/- to each voter at Chennilode Santhinagar Paniya Colony at 6.15 p.m. on 28.04.2006, which fact was informed to the petitioner by Beena. The 1st respondent is further alleged to have distributed at the rate of Rs.300/- to all the voters of Ambukutty Laksham Veedu colony at 7.20 p.m. on 28.04.2006, the information regarding which was provided to the petitioner by Noonjan. However, there is no averment in relation to any of the aforesaid incidents that the payment was ‘with the object, to directly or indirectly, induce’, any elector ‘to vote’ or ‘to refrain from voting’ or ‘for having exercised the vote’ or ‘for having refrained from voting’. Bereft of such ingredient being pleaded, there is no allegation made, in terms of law, to proceed with the trial of a corrupt practice under Section 123(1) of the Act. 46. The averments in paragraph 34 do not, therefore, constitute any triable cause of action. Paragraph No. 35 of the election petition 47. The allegations in paragraph No. 35 are made with reference to Section 123(6) of the Act. The averments in the said paragraph are verified by the petitioner, in the election petition, as “are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief”, without stating as to which are the pleadings on the basis of the knowledge of the petitioner and which are those on the basis of his information. In the same breadth, he states that “the averments stated in Paragraph 35 are stated on information which I believe to be true”. In paragraph No.6 of the affidavit in Form 25, as regards these averments, the petitioner says that the said statements “are also correct to my information”. However, the verification and the affidavit do not disclose as to what is the source of such information. 48. The ground under Section 123(6) has to be of a corrupt practice of incurring or authorizing of expenditure in contravention of Section 77 of the Act. Section 77 of the Act has three sub-sections. Sub-section 1 enjoins the maintenance of accounts of all expenditure in connection with the election incurred or authorised by the candidate or his election agent between the date of nomination and the date of declaration of result, both dates inclusive. Sub-section 2 enjoins that the accounts shall contain such particulars, as may be prescribed. Sub-section 1 enjoins the maintenance of accounts of all expenditure in connection with the election incurred or authorised by the candidate or his election agent between the date of nomination and the date of declaration of result, both dates inclusive. Sub-section 2 enjoins that the accounts shall contain such particulars, as may be prescribed. Sub-section 3 provides that the total of the said expenditure shall not exceed such amount as may be prescribed. According to the petitioner, the amount prescribed is Rs.10 lakhs. The date of nomination of the 1st respondent is not pleaded by the petitioner. There is also no pleading in paragraph 35 that the alleged expenses have been incurred or authorised on and after the date of nomination. To ascertain the date of nomination, if I were to look into the written statement, the nomination of the 1st respondent was filed on 7.4.2006. As already notice, there is no plea that the expenses incurred are on or after 7.4.2006, while the said pleadings specifically include alleged expenses from 2.4.2006. 49. The different expenses mentioned in paragraph No.35 can be considered as follows: a. A total amount of more than Rs.78 lakhs is spent by the 1st respondent. The petitioner pleads that he has “bonafide knowledge and information received” by him regarding such expenditure. No source of any such information is disclosed. It is also not stated that the said expenditure was incurred or authorised on and after the date of nomination. This aggregate is arrived at by grouping the different expenditures which are pleaded in paragraph 35. b. The 1st respondent is alleged to have arranged 2000 large size cut-outs spending at the rate of Rs.600/- per piece, totaling to Rs.12 lakhs. The date of incurring the expenditure (at least approximate), the basis of the statement that Rs.600/- was spent for each cut-out, even sketchy details regarding the making of the cut-outs or their placing and other relevant material facts have not been pleaded. The statements is too vague and does not disclose any cause of action on the basis of any material facts and does not, therefore, deserve to be tried. c. An amount of Rs.22,50,000/- is alleged to have been spent for printing 225000 multi-coloured posters in three different sizes at the rate of Rs.10/- per poster. The statements is too vague and does not disclose any cause of action on the basis of any material facts and does not, therefore, deserve to be tried. c. An amount of Rs.22,50,000/- is alleged to have been spent for printing 225000 multi-coloured posters in three different sizes at the rate of Rs.10/- per poster. The basis of such statement as to expenditure, including as to whether the said posters were exhibited or distributed and their contents or other relevant material facts are not pleaded. This plea would again only call for a rowing enquiry which is impermissible in the trial of an election petition. d. The 1st respondent is alleged to have printed, published and distributed 2 lakhs copies of an “Appeal to voters” spending at the rate of Rs.5/- per notice. The basis of such allegation, the source of printing, the people connected with the distribution, the contents of the appeal or other factors which would be the material facts of such an allegation, are totally absent in the election petition. No materials are also produced to inspire confidence to uphold a cause of action, to be put to trial. e. The 1st respondent is accused of having printed 1.20 lakhs of Annexure I notice at the rate of Rs.4/- per notice, thus spending an amount of Rs.4,80,000/-. As already pleaded by the petitioner, including him and the 1st respondent, there were 11 candidates. It is the petitioner’s plea that Annexure I is shown to have been published by one Rasheed, Joint Secretary of “Media Trust”, however that it is a fictitious name regarding the publisher and therefore, the 1st respondent is to be treated to have committed the electoral offence under Section 127A of the Act. (See para 27 of the election petition). As already held, there is no pleading to connect the publication of Annexure I to the 1st respondent. So much so, any expenditure for the printing of Annexure I also cannot be tagged on to his election expenditure. That apart, the total amount pleaded under this court is only Rs.4,80,000/- as against the outer limit of Rs.10 lakhs. f. The petitioner alleges that the 1st respondent has spent an amount of Rs.3 lakhs at the rate of Rs.2/- per piece, for 1,50,000 voters” slips accompanied by a request to cast vote for the 1st respondent. That apart, the total amount pleaded under this court is only Rs.4,80,000/- as against the outer limit of Rs.10 lakhs. f. The petitioner alleges that the 1st respondent has spent an amount of Rs.3 lakhs at the rate of Rs.2/- per piece, for 1,50,000 voters” slips accompanied by a request to cast vote for the 1st respondent. No particulars regarding printing, distribution, or the basis of such allegation as to expenditure are pleaded. g. It is alleged that the 1st respondent used “10 vehicles each on every day for every 10 panchayats and Kalpetta Municipality from 02.04.2006 (Note: the date of the nomination of the 1st respondent is only 7.4.2006) to 27.04.2006”, spending Rs.1,000/- per vehicle per day, including towards the mike system. It is, hence, contended that 2310 vehicles were thus hired, in total, for all the days, leading to an expenditure of Rs.23,10,000/-These statements are wholly insufficient and are vague. They do not disclose material facts to sustain an allegation as to expenditure, to be put to trial. h. It is the further allegation that on 29.04.2006, the date of polling, the 1st respondent hired 55 vehicles for transporting voters, free, to the booths, from their residences/nearby areas and their return from the booths. The 1st respondent is alleged to have spend at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per vehicle amounting to Rs.55,000/-. This plea essentially contradicts the pleadings in paragraph 25 and 26, wherein the petitioner attempted in paragraphs 25 and 26, wherein the petitioner attempted to allege a case against the 1st respondent, of corrupt practice, under Section 123(5) of the Act. That apart, the basis of the allegation regarding the total number of vehicle etc, is not given at all. The details of the vehicles are not mentioned. The booths or areas are not mentioned. The pleadings, in this regard, do not contain the material facts to put the election petition to trial. I do not, therefore, find any triable cause of action in this regard. The details of the vehicles are not mentioned. The booths or areas are not mentioned. The pleadings, in this regard, do not contain the material facts to put the election petition to trial. I do not, therefore, find any triable cause of action in this regard. i. The 1st respondent is alleged to have distributed “Rs.5 thousand each and above in 30 Adivasi colonies, for the purchase of votes and thus the total amount spend by him for purchasing the votes was more that 1,50,000/-.” This plea, as regards material facts, would essentially stand negative by the averments in paragraph 34 of the election petition, wherein the 1st respondent is alleged to have committed the corrupt practice of bribery. Further, the relevant material facts regarding the alleged distribution etc. are not stated at all. The pleadings are extremely sketchy and a rowing enquiry cannot be permitted on its basis. j. The next allegation is that the 1st respondent spent an amount of Rs.80,000/- towards fuel for the vehicles used by him and spend another Rs.2 lakhs towards expenses for public meetings, for bringing political leaders etc., however that the total amount shown by the 1st respondent in his accounts declared in terms of Sections 77 and 78 of the Act is only Rs.7,31,933.48. Which are the public meetings, including their dates or places of meetings are not mentioned. The names of the political leaders are not mentioned. Certain expenditures by the political parties would get excluded by virtue of the provisions of Sub-section 1 of Section 77. The identity of the vehicle or vehicles which the 1st respondent is stated to have used by spending Rs.80,000/- towards fuel is not mentioned. The basis and source of the information of the petitioner regarding any such expenditure are also not pleaded. The mere non-inclusion of certain expenditure in the accounts file by the candidate does not, by itself, amount to a corrupt practice, though amounts which are held to have been excluded can be added on to ascertain the total expenditure. But, the allegations in paragraph 35 conclude by stating that the exclusion of the entire expenditure is a ground to declare the election of the 1st respondent as void. The pleadings in this regard do not disclose any cause of action, but are only vague statements, on the basis of which there could be no trial of this election petition. 50. The pleadings in this regard do not disclose any cause of action, but are only vague statements, on the basis of which there could be no trial of this election petition. 50. The averments in paragraph 35 do not, therefore, constitute any triable cause of action. 51. The election petition is not verified as enjoined by law and the affidavit in form 25 is not in terms of Rule 94A of the C E Rules and cannot be acted upon as it does not disclose the source of information as to the facts which the petitioner does not plead of his own knowledge. The election petition also does not disclose any cause of action. The election petition is therefore, liable to be rejected. 52. In the result, the election petition is rejected. 53. The substance of this decision shall be communicated to the Election Commission and to the Speaker of the Kerala Legislative Assembly as required by Section 103 of the Act. An authentic copy of this order shall also be sent to the Election Commission as prescribed.