Judgment 1. This election petition has been filed by Dr. Ram Prakash Mahto under the provisions of Sections 80 and 80-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity) challenging the election of the sole respondent Tar Kishore Prasad who has been declared elected for 14th Bihar Legislative Assembly from 142, Katihar Assembly Constituency for which election was held on 26-10-2005. 2. The admitted facts of the matter are that a notification was issued on 28-9-2005 calling for the voters of 142 Katihar Assembly Constituency to elect their representative of 14th Bihar Legislative Assembly fixing 5-10-2005 as the last date for filing nomination within which period altogether 10 candidates, including the sole petitioner and the sole respondent, filed their nomination papers, out of which the petitioner was an official candidate of Rashtriya Janta Dal political party, whereas the sole respondent filed his nomination as an official candidate of Bhartiya Janta Party political party and after scrutiny on 6-10-2005, the nomination papers were found valid and were accepted and a list of validly nominated candidates was published by the Returning Officer, namely Sub-Divisional Officer, Katihar, whereafter election was held in various booths of the said constituency on 26-10-2005 and the votes were counted on 22-11-2005 and finally on the same date result was declared holding the sole respondent as the successful candidate. 3. The aforesaid election is under challenge in the instant election petition on various grounds. In reply to the claim of the election petitioner, the sole respondent filed his written statement on 5-9-2006. After completion of the pleadings following issues were framed by this Court on 10-10-2006: (i) Whether the election petition as framed is maintainable ? (ii) Whether the election petition is fit to be dismissed summarily for non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Sections 81, 82 and 117 of the Representation of the People Art, 1951 and for not disclosing the com plete cause of action under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure ? (iii) Whether: the election of the sole respondent is valid, illegal and is fit to be set aside ? (iii) Whether: the election of the sole respondent is valid, illegal and is fit to be set aside ? (iv) Whether the refusal of the Presiding Officer of the concerned booths to allow the voters to exercise their franchise on the basis of alternative documents prescribed by the Election Commission has materially affected the election of the Assembly Constituency concerned ? (v) Whether the petitioners voters having not been given their voters Identity Card by the District Administration with mala fide and oblique purposes, the entire purpose of the election was defeated, which affected the election of the Assembly Constituency concerned ? (vi) Whether refusal to act as per the instructions of the Election Commission of India with respect to the poll on booth Nos. 9 and 9A, the Returning Officer had failed to comply the instruction issued under Article 324 (1) of the Constitution of India, which has materially affected it ? (vii) Whether the election of the sole respondent is otherwise bad in law ? Issue Nos. (iv)(v) and (vi) 4 These three issues are taken up together for consideration as they are interrelated. The election petitioner has raised these issues claiming that the voters were not given their electoral photo identity cards (hereinafter referred to as EPIC for the sake of brevity) by the District Administration by mala fide and oblique purposes, whereas the Presiding Officer of the concerned booths refused to allow voters to exercise their franchise on the basis of alternative documents as prescribed by the Election Commission, which, according to the petitioner, materially affected the election of the Assembly Constituency and defeated the entire purpose of the election and hence the election of the sole respondent from the said constituency is clearly void and illegal and is fit to be set aside. 5. 5. It may be stated in this connection that all the aforesaid issues raised by the petitioner are only with respect to booth No. 9 and 9A of the said constituency situated at Primary School, Derhua Purana (Katihar), which is part of 142, Katihar Assembly Constituency, but it assumed vital importance for the instant case as the petitioner has lost the election by 116 votes only, whereas the aforesaid two booths had 1400 voters (752 + 648) out of whom only 15 voters (14+ 1) could cast their votes and the remaining 1385 voters of the said two booths could not cast their votes. 6. In support of his contention, the election petitioner has produced nine witnesses, out of whom, P.W. 1 is the petitioner himself and has fully supported the statements, made in the election petition and has also given details about the alleged occurrences, P.W. 2 is Md. Safique who was the polling agent at booth No. 9, whereas P.W. 3 Md. Soaib was polling agent of booth No. 9A. Apart from them, P.Ws. 4, 5, 6 and 7, namely Md. Sajjad, Md. Gaffar, Md. Sajjad and Md. Yasin respectively, were voters of the booths in question and had supported the claim of the petitioner. P.W. 8 is a Reader in D.S. College, Katihar and was column writer of Daily Hindustan, whereas P.W. 9 is the Press Photographer of the said newspaper of the Katihar Office and they proved news items as well as photographs published in the said newspaper with respect to the alleged refusal of the election authorities to allow the voters to cast their votes. 7. Apart from the aforesaid oral evidence . the election petitioner has produced several documentary evidence, out of which Ext. 1 is copy of the fax message sent by the petitioner to the Election Commission of India on 26-10-2005, Ext. 2 is also letter of the petitioner dated 26-10-2005 to the Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Chief Election Officer, Patna, whereas Ext. 3 is the communication report of the said letter to the concerned authority. Ext. 4 is the certified copy of petition submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in Complaint Case No. 1294 of 2005, whereas Ext. 5 is letter of petitioner to the Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi dated 30-7-2005 and Ext. 3 is the communication report of the said letter to the concerned authority. Ext. 4 is the certified copy of petition submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in Complaint Case No. 1294 of 2005, whereas Ext. 5 is letter of petitioner to the Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi dated 30-7-2005 and Ext. 6 is D.O. letter dated 10-9-2005 of one Sri Anand Kumar, Deputy Election Commissioner with some direction issued through Election Commission of India, New Delhi, Ext. 7 is the voter list of booth No. 9 and Ext. 8 is the entire order-sheet prepared by Returning Officer. Furthermore Ext. X series are copies of Hindustan newspaper, EPIC distribution register pages 114 to 150, photo copy of voter list of booth No. 9A, application of villagers to Returning Officer, order dated 11 -10-2005 of Election Commission of India, letter of Election Commission of India to Chief Electoral Officer, letter of Returning Officer to Sri Nikhil Choudhary, the Hindustan newspaper of 20-5-2005, 17-5-2007 and 21-5-2005. 8. On the other hand, respondent produced 16 witnesses, out of whom, D.W. 1 was the respondent himself, D.Ws. 2 to 9 were the voters of the two booths in question, D.W. 10 was B.D.O. cum-Assistant Returning Officer, D.W. 11 was the B.D.O., D.W. 12 was the Presiding Officer of Booth No. 9, D.W. 13 was the S.D.O.-cum-Return-ing Officer, D.W. 14 was the Presiding Officer of booth No. 9A, D.W. 16 was the B.D.O. (Law and Order), whereas D.W. 15 was the District Magistrate- cum District Election Officer, during the relevant period. The said election authorities have specifically stated that the elections were held as per the direction of the District Election Officer vide memo dated 20-10-2005, Ext. Y. 9. Apart from the said oral evidence, the respondent produced several exhibits, out of which, Ext. A was the FIR, Ext. B was the signature of Sri Umesh Chandra Biswas on the FIR, Ext. C was the report submitted by Prahalad Lall, Ext. D was the report submitted by the Presiding Officer, Ext. E was the report of the Returning Officer, Ext. F was the diary of Presiding Officers of booth Nos. 9 and 9A, Ext. G was the report of the other Presiding Officer, Ext.-H was the report of Rajiv Rathore dated 26-10-2005 and Ext. D was the report submitted by the Presiding Officer, Ext. E was the report of the Returning Officer, Ext. F was the diary of Presiding Officers of booth Nos. 9 and 9A, Ext. G was the report of the other Presiding Officer, Ext.-H was the report of Rajiv Rathore dated 26-10-2005 and Ext. Y was the directions of the District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer vide memo No. 1628 dated 20-10-2005 to all the Presiding Officers of the booths. 10. The allegation of the petitioner is that EPICS were not supplied to the said voters, but when they came to vote authorities at the booth refused to allow them to vote without EPICS, although the said voters had come with alternative documents as prescribed by the Election Commission for their identification. It was also claimed by the petitioner that the voters of the said two booths were his strong supporters and had they been allowed to vote, the petitioner would have obtained several hundred votes and he would have naturally succeeded in the election. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent that EPICS were supplied to the voters as EPIC numbers were specifically mentioned against their respective names in the voter list at the two booths and hence it was the duty of the voters to bring their EPICS along with them for the purposes of voting, but they intentionally did not bring the EPICS which were supplied to them. The respondent also claimed that only those voters can be allowed to vote on the basis of alternative documents to whom the EPICS had not been supplied and hence the voters to whom EPICS were supplied, but they did not produce the said EPICS, were rightly not allowed to cast their votes. 11. So far EPICS are concerned, they had been introduced far back by 1958 Act to check bogus voting by proper identification of the voters, but issuance of EPICS practically started from the year 1995 as before that no voter was asked to provide EPIC or alternative documents and they were allowed to cast their votes only when they were recognized by the polling agents who were posted for that purpose as provided in Rule 36 of the Election Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for the sake of brevity). The function of the Presiding Officer or the Polling Officer, as the case may be, in that regard has been provided in Rules 36 and 37 of the Rules. These Rules are although of 1961, but they have not been given a go-bye even after 1995 when the EPICS had been introduced. In the said circumstances, EPICS are provided only to facilitate the process of identification by the Polling Officer or the Presiding Officer, but it cannot be used as a bar to the right to vote as prescribed under Section 62(1) of the Act subject only to the conditions as prescribed under Section 62(2) to (5) of the Act. The Hon ble Apex Court in case of Shyamdeo Pd. Singh V/s. Nawal Kishsore Yadav, 2000 8 SCC 46 : ( AIR 2000 SC 3000 ) has specifically held that unless disqualified under Section 62(2) to (5) of the Act any person enrolled in the electoral roll cannot be excluded from exercising his right to cast vote. 12. From the provisions made in the relevant Acts and Rules it is quite apparent that the production of EPICS cannot be made a condition precedent for voting as EPICS has been provided only to facilitate the procedure. Hence the Hon ble Apex Court in case of M/s. R. N. Jadi & Brothers V/s. Subashchandra, 2007 4 PLJR 106 : ( AIR 2007 SC 2571 ) clearly held that processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant and not a resistant in the administration of justice. It has also been held that merely because a provision of law is couched in a negative language implying mandatory character, the same is not without exceptions. The Courts, when called upon to interpret the nature of the provision, may, keeping in view the entire context in which the provision came to be enacted, hold the same to be directory though worded in the negative form. In another decision in case of Shreenath V/s. Rajesh, AIR 1998 SC 1827 , the Hon ble Apex Court has clearly held that a procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory, because the procedural law is always subservient to and in aid of justice. In another decision in case of Shreenath V/s. Rajesh, AIR 1998 SC 1827 , the Hon ble Apex Court has clearly held that a procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory, because the procedural law is always subservient to and in aid of justice. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice is not to be followed. 13. In 2004 Handbook for Returning Officers issued by Election Commission of India, Clause 27.3 specifically provides that from the year 2000, the Commission has been insisting on documentary identification of electors who are required to produce the electoral photo identity card (EPIC) to establish their identity and that those electors who have not been issued with their EPIC, or those of them who are unable to produce it for reasons beyond their control, should produce one of the alternative documents of identification specifically permitted by the Commission. The Commission has been issuing orders in this regard at the time of every election and District Election Officers have been directed that they must refer to the order issued by the Commission and bring it to the notice of all Presiding Officers during training and these orders or circulars issued by the Commission should also be given wide publicity for the information of electors. For compulsory identification of electors through EPIC or alternative documents, the Polling Officers or In-charge of identification of voters are to satisfy themselves about the identity of the electors after examining the EPIC or the alternative documents, as the case may be, and in case of any doubt the elector should be directed to present himself before the Presiding Officer who should make a further probe to satisfy himself about the identity of the elector. The Presiding Officer is to hand over the person to the police with a written complaint in case he is proved to be an impersonator. The Presiding Officer is to hand over the person to the police with a written complaint in case he is proved to be an impersonator. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is quite apparent that the Election Commission has specifically provided that if the EPIC has not been issued to any voter or if any EPIC is issued and the voter is unable to produce it for reasons beyond his control, he should be allowed to vote on the basis of one of the alternative documents of identification specifically permitted by the Commission and in any case it is the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer which is of paramount importance for allowing an elector to exercise his franchise. 14. By memo No. 3/4/2005. NYA. ANU II. dated 11-10-2005 (Ext X), the Election Commission considered the entire matter as well as the specific provisions of law with respect to identification of electors and directed all the authorities concerned with the election of Bihar Legislative Assembly Constituencies going to be held in October, 2005 to see that the electors have to identify themselves by the EPICS supplied to them and only those electors who had not received EPICS, should be allowed to vote on the basis of any of the alternative documents to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned. Following are the 17 alternative documents mentioned in the said order of the Election Commission. (i) Passports, (ii) Driving Licences, (iii) Income Tax Identity (PAN) cards, (iv) Service Identity Cards issued to its employees by State/Central Government, Public Sector Undertakings, Local Bodies or Public Limited Companies, (v) Bank/Kisan/Post Office Passbooks (Accounts opened on or before 31-8-2005), (vi) Student Identity Cards with photographs issued by Recognised Educational Institutions issued on or before 31-8-2005. (vii) Property documents such as Pattas, Registered Deeds, etc., (viii) SC/ST/OBC Certificates issued by an officer not below rank of the Sub-Divisional Officer on or before 31-8-2005, (ix) Pension documents in original such as ex-servicemens Pension Book/Ex-servicemens Pension Payment Order, Ex-servicemens widow/Dependent certificates, Old Age Pension Cards/Widow Pension Cards, (x) Railway Identification Cards issued on or before 31-8-2005, (xi) Freedom Fighter Identity Cards, (xii) Arms Licenses, (xiii) Certificate of physical handicap issued by competent authority on or before 31-8-2005, (xiv) Red Ration Card issued by State Govt. of Bihar for people below poverty line, on or before 31-8-2005, (xv) Yellow Ration Card issued by State Govt. of Bihar for people below poverty line, on or before 31-8-2005, (xv) Yellow Ration Card issued by State Govt. of Bihar under Antodaya Scheme, on or before 31-8-2005, (xvi) Green Ration Card issued by State Govt. of Bihar for people above poverty line on or before 31-8-2005, (xvii) White Ration Card issued by State Govt. of Bihar under Annapurna Scheme, on or before 31-8-2005. 15. However, the District Election Officer-cum-District Magistrate, Katihar issued instructions vide Memo No. 1628 (Elect.) Katihar dated 20-10-2005 (Ext. Y) to all the Presiding Officers to permit voters against whose names EPIC numbers were mentioned in the voter list to cast their votes only when they produce their EPICS and only those voters against whose names EPIC numbers were not mentioned in the voter list should be allowed to cast their votes on the basis of the aforesaid alternative documents. These facts have been admitted by the then District Election Officer-cum-District Magistrate, Katihar who deposed as D.W. 15 for the respondent. These facts were also admitted by the Returning Officer, Assistant Returning Officers as well as the Presiding Officers of the booths concerned namely Booth Nos. 9 and 9A, who deposed as DWs. 13, 10, 12 and 14 respectively for the respondent. 16. From the aforementioned oral and documentary evidence it becomes quite apparent that memo No. 1628 dated 20-10-2005 (Ext. Y) issued by the District Election Officer to all the Presiding Officers of the election concerned was not in accordance with and in conformity to the directions of the Election Commission issued to all the District Election Officers bearing memo No. 3/4/ID/2005 dated 11-10-2005 (Ext. X) as the Election Commission had mentioned that those electors, who had not received EPICS, should be allowed to vote on the basis of any of the alternative documents, by the District Election Officer had directed all the Presiding Officers to permit only those voters to cast their votes, on alternate documents against whose names EPIC numbers were not given in the voter list. Hence the District Election Officer had changed the category of voters who can be allowed to vote without EPICS as the Election Commission allowed those electors who had not received EPICS to vote without it on the basis of alternative documents, whereas the District Election Officer has allowed only those voters to cast their votes without EPICS against whose name EPIC number was not given in the voter list. Thus the District Election Officer shifted the emphasis from receipt of EPICS as provided by the Election Commission to recording of EPIC in voter list. 17. The petitioner has specifically claimed that although EPIC Distribution Register had been prepared, in which EPIC numbers had been mentioned against most of the voters, but only a few of them had been supplied and had received EPICS, whereas most of them had not received the EPIC although EPIC numbers had been mentioned against their names which is apparent from the Register. It is also claimed that the voter list had been prepared and EPIC numbers had been mentioned therein after taking into account only the number given in the EPIC Distribution Register and not the receipt by voters. The aforesaid claim has been proved by the voters who deposed as P.W. 4 and P.W. 5, who stated that no EPIC was supplied to them, but when they went to the polling booth for casting their votes with alternative documents, they were not allowed to vote as EPIC numbers were mentioned against their names in the voter list. Furthermore, P.W. 6 stated that although EPIC had been issued to him earlier, but it was burnt with his house and no fresh EPIC was issued to him and when he went to cast his vote along with alternative document he was not allowed to vote. 18. On the other hand, the respondent could not produce any evidence to show that EPICs were received by the voters against whom EPIC numbers were given in the voter list. The EPIC Distribution Register contains several columns, namely serial number, voters name, EPIC number and signature of the recipients. However, the respondent was unable to produce any EPIC Distribution Register which could show the signa-ture/T I of all the persons against whose names EPIC numbers were given in the voter list. The EPIC Distribution Register contains several columns, namely serial number, voters name, EPIC number and signature of the recipients. However, the respondent was unable to produce any EPIC Distribution Register which could show the signa-ture/T I of all the persons against whose names EPIC numbers were given in the voter list. None of the witnesses also could say that all the electors against whose names EPIC numbers were given had received the EPICs. Even D. W. 15. the District Election Officer, evaded the question by saying that he had not seen the EPIC Distribution Register as it was not possible for him to see the same. He could only say that all efforts were made to ensure that every voter receives his EPIC, but he could not say whether the said efforts were fruitful. Furthermore, the claim of the respondent as well as the statement of the District Election Officer is that the entries made in the voter list were final as they were obtained from the EPIC Distribution Register, but when the EPIC Distribution Register itself could not show that EPICs were supplied to the voter concerned, the entire process adopted by the authorities concerned appears to be in complete violation of the specific instruction of the Election Commission. 19. The Hand Book of 2004 for the Returning Officers issued by the Election Commission of India specifically provides in Clause 27.3 thereof that those electors who have not been issued with their EPIC or those of them who are unable to produce it for reasons beyond their control should produce one of the alternative documents for their identification. By its order dated 11-10-2005 (Ext. X), the Election Commission had permitted those electors, who had not received EPIC, to cast their vote on the basis of any of the alternative documents permitted by the Commission. But in the instant case, the District Election Officer had admittedly issued directions vide memo dated 20-10-2005 (Ext. Y) completely overlooking the said direction of the Election Commission and ignoring those persons who were supplied EPICs but were unable to produce it due to reasons beyond their control and also ignoring those persons against whose names EPIC numbers were mentioned in the voter list, but EPICs were not received by them. It is thus quite apparent that the instructions of the District Election Officer dated 20-10-2005 (Ext. It is thus quite apparent that the instructions of the District Election Officer dated 20-10-2005 (Ext. Y) was not only violative of the directions of the Election Commission, but was also illegal, arbitrary, perverse and without jurisdiction in view of the clear decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in case of Shyamdeo Pd. Singh ( AIR 2000 SC 3000 ) (supra), M/s. R. N. Jadi & Brothers ( AIR 2007 SC 2571 ) (supra) and Shreenath ( AIR 1998 SC 1827 ) (supra). 20. In the said facts and circumstances it is quite apparent that the said illegal instruction of the District Election Officer not to allow such voters as mentioned above to exercise their franchise on the basis of the alternative documents prescribed by the Election Commission has materially affected the election of the Assembly Constituency in question specially when the respondent has won the election only by 116 votes, whereas out of 1400 voters only 15 voters could cast their votes on the booths in question, namely Booth Nos. 9 and 9A. 21. Article 324(1) of the Constitution of India specifically provides that the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State and of elections to the offices of President and Vice-President held under the Constitution shall be vested in a Commission (referred to in the Constitution as the Election Commission). Hence, superintendence, direction and control of the Presiding Officer of such elections remain with the Election Commission. 22. Furthermore, Section 20-A of the Act provides general duties of District Election Officer that subject to the superintendence, direction and control of the Chief Electoral Officer, the District Election Officer shall coordinate and supervise all work in the district or in the area within his jurisdiction in connection with the conduct of all elections to Parliament and the Legislature of the State. It also provided that District Election Officer shall also perform such other functions as may be entrusted to him by the Election Commission and the Chief Electoral Officer. Hence, the District Election Officer has only to act as per the instructions and directions of the Election commission and cannot act independently ignoring the specific directions of the Election Commission. 23. It also provided that District Election Officer shall also perform such other functions as may be entrusted to him by the Election Commission and the Chief Electoral Officer. Hence, the District Election Officer has only to act as per the instructions and directions of the Election commission and cannot act independently ignoring the specific directions of the Election Commission. 23. According to Section 21 of the Act, the Returning Officer is nominated in consultation with the Government of the State and District Election Officer has no say in the said matter. Section 24 of the Act provides general duty of the Returning Officer to do such acts and things, as may be necessary for effectually conducting the election in the manner provided by the Act and rules or orders made thereunder. Section 28A of the Act provides that the Returning Officer and the Presiding Officer etc. shall be deemed on deputation to the Election Commission for the period concerned and shall during that period, be subject to the control, superintendence and discipline of the Election Commission. 24. From the aforesaid provisions of law it is quite apparent that the District Election Officer does not come between the Returning Officer or the Presiding Officer and the Election Commission. The District Election Officer is only to act as a link between them and cannot give any direction to the Returning Officer or Presiding Officer unless such a direction or instruction has been given by the Election Commission. It is an admitted fact that voters of booth Nos. 9 and 9A did not boycott the poll, rather when they came and were not allowed to vote on the basis of alternative documents, some of them filed petition before the Returning Officer specifically stating that no EPIC was ever issued to them. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that the Presiding Officers and the Returning Officers of Booth Nos. 9 and 9A did not act according to the specific instruction of the Election Commission as per 2004 Hand Book of Returning Officer issued by the Election. Commission of India or the specific order of the Election Commission dated 11-10-2005 (Ext. X) and acted merely on the illegal instruction given by the District Election Officer vide his memo dated 20-10-2005 (Ext. Y) and thus they clearly violated the specific provision of Article 324(1) of the Constitution of India which materially affected the election. Commission of India or the specific order of the Election Commission dated 11-10-2005 (Ext. X) and acted merely on the illegal instruction given by the District Election Officer vide his memo dated 20-10-2005 (Ext. Y) and thus they clearly violated the specific provision of Article 324(1) of the Constitution of India which materially affected the election. 25. Although learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the District Administration did not hand over the EPICs to the petitioners voters of the concerned booths intentionally with mala fide and oblique purposes due to enmity with the petitioner and in that regard he had referred to Bheriya Rehika incident dated 19-5-2005 when the houses of 100 poor families were demolished by the district authorities and when the petitioner while trying to intervene being the then MLA was allegedly beaten up by the police at the instance of the district administration and was arrested in an injured condition. There are claims and counter claims on behalf of both the parties and several documentary and oral evidence have been produced by them in that regard. However, after consideration of the said claims and materials it transpires that there were certain administrative lapses, but it could not be proved satisfactorily that there was any inimical intention or mala fide or oblique purpose of the district administration to anyhow defeat him in the election of the Assembly Constituency concerned. 26. From the foregoing paragraphs and findings it is quite apparent that the District Election Officer violated the specific instructions of the Election Commission by issuing direction to the Presiding Officers/ Returning Officers dated 20-10-2005 (Ext. Y) which was violative of instruction given by the Election Commission vide its 2004 Hand Book of Returning Officer and subsequent communication from the Election Commission dated 11-10-2005 (Ext. X). It has been found that the Presiding Officer/ Returning Officer did not comply the instructions of the Election Commission, rather they acted as per the illegal direction of the District Election Officer, although they were duty bound to act as per the instructions of the Election Commission only. It has also been found that two booths in question, namely booth Nos. It has also been found that two booths in question, namely booth Nos. 9 and 9A had 1400 voters, out of whom only 15 voters could cast their votes, whereas remaining 1385 voters of the said booths could not cast their votes which materially affected the election, which was won by the respondent defeating the petitioner by only 116 votes. Issue Nos. (i) & fill 27. These two issues have been raised by the respondent and are taken up together for consideration as they are inter related. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that according to Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, election petitions can be filed only on the grounds covered under Sections 100 and 101 of the Act and not beyond that, but in the instant case, the election petition is devoid of any such grounds. The respondent further claimed that neither any detail was given in the election petition, nor any material was referred to therein which supported the claim of the election petition. It was also averred on behalf of the respondent that even according to the claim of the petitioner the aforesaid booths in question were functioning throughout the day and admittedly the polling neither started belatedly, nor was stopped for any period and hence there was no occasion for any adjourned poll for which complete procedure is prescribed under Section 57 of the Act and directions were also issued by the Election Commission on 10-9-2005 (Annexure-7). Learned counsel for the respondent also stated that according to Section 58 of the Act fresh poll can be held only in the circumstances mentioned in the said section. He also averred that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the provision of adjourned poll or countermanding of election under Section 58A of the Act was not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is also alleged that the complete cause of action as required under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has not been disclosed in the election petition. Hence, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that neither the election petition was maintainable nor material facts were mentioned in the election petition. It is also alleged that the complete cause of action as required under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has not been disclosed in the election petition. Hence, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that neither the election petition was maintainable nor material facts were mentioned in the election petition. In this regard, he relied upon several decisions of the Hon ble Apex Court in case of Jagan Nath V/s. Jaswant Singh, AIR 1954 SC 210 ; in case of Samant N. Balakrishna etc. V/s. George Fernandez, AIR 1969 SC 1201 ; in case of Jitendra Bahadur Singh V/s. Krishna Behari, AIR 1970 SC 276 ; and in case of Azhar Hussain V/s. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1986 SC 1253. 28. From a bare perusal of the election petition it is quite apparent that in paragraphs 1 to 4 thereof certain facts are mentioned regarding election, whereas paragraphs 5 to 20 of the election petition are petitioners statements with respect to his dispute with District authorities. Furthermore, paragraphs 21 to 27 of the election petition dealt with preparation and distribution of EPICs, whereas paragraphs 28 to 48 thereof are petitioners statements with regard to allegations that voters were not allowed to vote on the alternative documents on the booth in question, namely booth Nos. 9 and 9A alleging that in those booths election was not conducted in free, fair and impartial manner which materially affected the result of the election. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that the required details of the events and the materials have been specifically given and the complete cause of action has been disclosed in the election petition and hence there is no violation of any of the aforesaid provisions of law. In the said circumstances, the case laws referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Accordingly, this election petition as framed is held to be Issue Nos. (iii) & (vii) 29. In view of the aforesaid findings with regard to issue Nos. (i), (ii), (iv), (v) and (vi) it is quite apparent that the election of the sole respondent is void, illegal, bad in law and is thus fit to be set aside. 30. Accordingly, this election petition as framed is held to be Issue Nos. (iii) & (vii) 29. In view of the aforesaid findings with regard to issue Nos. (i), (ii), (iv), (v) and (vi) it is quite apparent that the election of the sole respondent is void, illegal, bad in law and is thus fit to be set aside. 30. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court has no option, but to declare that the poll in question for 142, Katihar Assembly Constituency of 14th Bihar Legislative Assembly, is void and is accordingly set aside and the Election Commission is directed to appoint a day and fix the hours, for taking a fresh poll only on booth Nos. 9 and 9A and notify the day, so appointed, and the hours, so fixed, in such manner as is proved in law and after holding fresh polls in the said booths in accordance with the provisions of law and the specific instructions of the Election Commission as mentioned above get fresh votes in the said two booths counted. It may be noted here that polling in all the other booths of the said constituency shall remain unaffected and the votes obtained by the candidates on fresh poll in booth Nos. 9 and 9A shall be added to the votes already obtained earlier by the respective candidates in all the other booths of the constituency and thereafter to declare the result of the constituency accordingly. 31. With the aforesaid directions, this election petition is allowed.