JUDGMENT 1. - This election petition seeks to challenge validity of the election of respondent no.1 Govind Singh Dotasara to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly as Member of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly in 13th Vidhansabha Elections, 2008 from Laxmangarh Constituency (033) of Sikar District in the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to recount the votes and declare election of respondent no.1 as void and to declare himself duly elected. The petitioner contested the election as an independent candidate and the respondent no.1 Govind Singh was fielded by Indian National Congress as its candidate. Since the petitioner also prayed that he should be declared elected in place of respondent no.1, all other candidates have also been impleaded as respondent nos.2 to 14. Total number of electors in the said Constituency was 1,93,145, of which 1,27,898 cast their votes. While the petitioner secured 31,671 votes, respondent no.1 Govind Singh Dotasara, the returned candidate, got 31,705 votes and was therefore declared elected by a margin of 34 votes. After respondent no.1 filed reply to the election petition, as many as 10 issues were framed by this Court for trial of the election petition. Issue nos.7, 8 and 9 were framed on the basis of objections raised by the respondent-returned candidate, for which he also separately filed an application under Order 6, Rule 16 and Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short-'the CPC'). When the matter was listed before this Court on 1.12.2011, learned counsel for the parties agreed that those issues and also the aforesaid application can be decided even without recording of evidence. This is how arguments were heard for deciding the aforesaid application and issue nos.7, 8 and 9, which for the facility of reference are reproduced hereunder: 7. Whether no ground as envisaged by sections 100 and 101 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is made out from facts mentioned in Para no.6, 8 and 12 and ground (A) to (D) of the election petition so same does not discloses any cause of action and are liable to be struck down and election petition is liable to be rejected? 8. Whether in the election petition no material facts and particulars have been pleaded by the petitioner and the pleadings made by the petitioner are merely vague and general in nature so the election petition is liable to be rejected? 8. Whether in the election petition no material facts and particulars have been pleaded by the petitioner and the pleadings made by the petitioner are merely vague and general in nature so the election petition is liable to be rejected? 9. Whether due to non-compliance of provisions of section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as pleaded in additional plea 'E' Election Petition is liable to be rejected? 2. I have heard Shri J.P. Goyal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Parag Rastogi, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 3. Shri Parag Rastogi, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that validity of an election to the Legislative Assembly can be challenged by any person only when the case strictly falls within the exception clause (b) of Article 329 of the Constitution, which inter alia provides that no such election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate legislature. The Parliament has in this connection enacted the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which provides not only for the authority to whom the election petition is presented but also the manner in which such election petition can be presented. The election petition filed by the petitioner does not disclose any cause of action entitling him to get the inspection, scrutiny and recount of the votes and the voting machines or postal ballot papers requisitioned so as to violate secrecy of the ballot. Petitioner has to establish a prima-facie case that there has been improper reception, refusal or rejection of the votes or reception of any void votes, as envisaged by Section 100 (1)(d)(iii) of the Act of 1951 before the order of recount is made. No such material facts or particulars have been pleaded by the petitioner. Pleadings of the election petition are highly vague and general in nature. Facts mentioned in para no.1 to 12 and ground A to D do not at all disclose any cause of action. In order to bring home his point, Shri Parag Rastogi, learned counsel for the respondent-returned candidate extensively referred to pleadings in paragraph nos.5 to 10 and grounds A to D, which shall be appropriately dealt with in later part of this judgement. 4. In order to bring home his point, Shri Parag Rastogi, learned counsel for the respondent-returned candidate extensively referred to pleadings in paragraph nos.5 to 10 and grounds A to D, which shall be appropriately dealt with in later part of this judgement. 4. Shri Parag Rastogi, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that assertion made in para 10 of the election petition that 200 valid votes did not have the proper verification or signature by any gazetted officer, which were all counted in favour of returned candidate, is a very vague pleading. The petitioner does not allege that he gave any written application at the start of the counting objecting to counting of such invalid votes. In fact, he did not object to continuance of counting, which eventually was taken to its logical conclusion. The petitioner's assertion that invalid votes were not rejected and votes which were valid, were rejected, cannot be accepted in the absence of any material as to what was the nature of defect of allegedly invalid votes. When the petitioner on his own showing did not object in writing, such a vague election petition ought to be rejected at the threshold. 5. Shri Parag Rastogi, learned counsel for the respondent no.1-returned candidate argued that according to Section 86 of the Act of 1951, the High Court shall dismiss an election petition, which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81 or 82 or Section 117 of the Act of 1951. Section 81 requires that such election petition can be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of Section 100 of the Act. Section 100(1)(d) provides that if the High Court is of the opinion that the result of the election in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected- (i) by the improper acceptance or any nomination or, (ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the returned candidate or, (iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or reception of any vote, which is void and lastly or, (iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of the said Act or of the Rules made thereunder, it shall declare such election void. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to set up a case for improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void. He has also failed to make out a case of non-compliance of any of the provisions of the Constitution or any Act or Rules framed thereunder. In this connection, learned counsel extensively referred to the provisions contained in the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, especially those contained in Chapter-II of the Rules, relating to voting by Electronic Voting Machines and made specific reference to rule 49S with regard to preparation of Form 17C, rule 49T with regard to sealing of voting machine after poll, rule 49U with regard to sealing of the packets and rule 54A in regard to counting of votes received by post. 6. Shri Parag Rastogi, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the assertion by the petitioner in para 10 of the election petition that when he objected to counting of 200 such postal ballots, which did not have proper attestation/verification, the Presiding Officer handed over such postal ballots to subordinate officers, who were not well versed in counting of the postal votes. This is an allegation of corrupt practice for which the petitioner was required to disclose the names of the Presiding Officer as also the subordinate officers to whom he handed over the postal ballots. Petitioner has not disclosed the name of the polling station with respect to which, he has alleged the discrepancy attributing deliberate omission to such officers. The allegation in para 10 of the election petition that postal ballots that were counted in favour of returned candidates were such which did not have verification or attestation is absolutely vague as no details/ballot paper numbers etc. of such votes have been disclosed by the petitioner, which he could have easily noted at the time of counting. The alleged oral objection has got no sanctity in law. The fact that petitioner himself is asserting that he made oral objection only proves that he did not in fact make any objection at all. The allegation even otherwise is absolutely vague and does not inspire any confidence because total number of postal ballots secured by respondent-returned candidate was only 182, thus the number of votes that he got by way of postal ballot was far less than the alleged figure of 200. The allegation even otherwise is absolutely vague and does not inspire any confidence because total number of postal ballots secured by respondent-returned candidate was only 182, thus the number of votes that he got by way of postal ballot was far less than the alleged figure of 200. There is no assertion by the petitioner as to if he lodged a protest with the District Election Officer or even with the Central Observer of the Election Commission of India. 7. Shri Parag Rastogi, learned counsel for the respondent in support his arguments has cited the judgements of the Supreme Court in Jyoti Basu & Ors. v. Debi Ghosal & Ors., AIR 1982 SC 983 ; Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1986 SC 1253 ; Bhagwati Prasad Dixit Ghorewala v. Rajeev Gandhi, AIR 1986 SC 1534 ; Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Shri Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1987 SC 1577 ; Samar Singh v. Kedar Nath & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 1926 ; V.S. Achuthanandan v. P.J. Francis & Anr., (2001) 3 SCC 81 ; Hari Shanker Jain v. Sonia Gandhi, (2001) 8 SCC 233 ; Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar v. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar, (2009) 9 SCC 310 ; and D.P. Sharma v. The Commissioner and Returning Officer & Ors., AIR 1984 SC 654 . It is therefore prayed that the election petition be dismissed for it does not disclose any cause of action. 8. Per contra, Shri J.P. Goyal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the pleadings in the election petition; especially in paras 5 to 10 and ground A to D cannot, be said to be vague and unclear. Those pleadings do disclose the cause of action making out a prima facie case, which is worth trial. Learned Senior Counsel argued that the Presiding Officer is required to prepare a diary of booth in respect of each of the polling stations. Such diary contains details of number of votes, which were identified and cast their votes and number of votes recorded in the EVMs. Petitioner obtained certified copies of diaries of each and every polling station. Number of discrepancies pointed out in para 6 of the petition are based on the certified copies of the diary of each polling station, whereas such diaries regarding polling both nos.99 and 102 were not supplied. Petitioner obtained certified copies of diaries of each and every polling station. Number of discrepancies pointed out in para 6 of the petition are based on the certified copies of the diary of each polling station, whereas such diaries regarding polling both nos.99 and 102 were not supplied. It is on that basis that the petitioner is asserting that in absence of supply of diary, the voters turn out in those polling stations cannot be treated to be valid votes. Discrepancies as pointed out in para 7, 8, 9 and 10 are such which had materially affected result of the election. Considering the fact that there was margin of only 34 votes, each and every discrepancy, may be of a small number of votes, would have a material bearing on the ultimate result of the election. Learned Senior Counsel argued that in so far as Laxmangarh constituency is concerned, out of 459 votes only 20 votes were rejected, which constitutes only 4.55% of the total postal ballots of that constituency. But only 26% votes were cancelled in Dhod constituency, 46% in Sikar constituency, 20% in Khandela constituency, 8% in Srimadhopur constituency and 21% in Fatehpur constituency, which is why petitioner raised objection at the time of counting, but the ballot papers were handed over by the Presiding Officer to subordinate officers. 200 of such ballot papers were not attested/verified by the gazetted officers and those were liable to be rejected as being not valid. Such invalid votes were not rejected whereas on the other hand, valid votes cast in favour of petitioner were rejected. Shri J.P. Goyal, learned Senior Counsel has taken the court through the pleadings in paras 5 to 10 and ground A to D extensively to argue that those pleadings do disclose a cause of action and contain material facts and they fully satisfy the provisions of Section 86 and 100 of the Act of 1950. 9. Shri J.P. Goyal, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner argued that material facts have been fully pleaded as per the requirement of Section 83(1)(a) and 100 (1)(d). The material particulars may be allowed to be supplied later on. It was argued that material facts are preliminary and basic facts in character which lead to discloser of a cause of action whereas material particulars are matters of elaborations and details. The material particulars may be allowed to be supplied later on. It was argued that material facts are preliminary and basic facts in character which lead to discloser of a cause of action whereas material particulars are matters of elaborations and details. It was argued that the petitioner orally objected to counting of 202 postal ballots illegally in favour of returned candidate, but at the end of the counting when he demanded the recounting, the petitioner made this allegation in the application for recount. Learned Senior Counsel cited judgement of the Supreme Court in Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar v. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar, (2009) 9 SCC 310 to show the distinction between the material facts and material particulars. 10. Shri J.P. Goyal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also relied on judgement of the Supreme Court in K.K. Ramachandran Master v. M.V. Sreyamakumar & Ors., (2010) 7 SCC 428 and argued that Supreme Court in that case has held that dismissal of an election petition on the ground of deficiency or non-disclosure of particulars of corrupt practice may be justified only if election petitioner does not despite an opportunity given by the court provide particulars and thereby cure the defect. The petitioner can even now be permitted to supply the material particulars. He also relied on judgement of the Supreme Court in Virender Nath Gautam v. Satpal Singh & Ors., (2007) 3 SCC 617 to the same effect. It is therefore prayed that the preliminary objections be rejected and the issue nos.7 to 9 be decided in favour of petitioner. 11. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 12. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, it would be apposite to take stock of position of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in various judgements, which have been cited at the Bar. 13. 11. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 12. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, it would be apposite to take stock of position of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in various judgements, which have been cited at the Bar. 13. In Jyoti Basu, supra, the Supreme Court while relying on its earlier Constitution Bench judgment in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, AIR 1952 SC 64 and yet another judgement in Jagan Nath v. Jaswant Singh, AIR 1954 SC 210 held that nature of the right to elect, the right to be elected and the right to dispute an election and the scheme of constitutional and statutory provisions in relation to these rights is neither a fundamental, nor a Common Law Right, which is pure and simple, a statutory right. So is the right to be elected and right to dispute an election. Outside the Statute, there is no right to elect, no right to be elected and no right to dispute an election. Statutory creations they are and therefore subject to statutory limitation. An election petition is not an action at common law, nor in equity. It is a statutory proceeding to which neither the common law, nor the principles of equity apply but only those rules which the statute makes and applies. It is a special jurisdiction and a special jurisdiction has always to be exercised in accordance with the Statute creating it. In the trial of election disputes, Court is put in a straight jacket. Thus the entire election process commencing from the issuance of the notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member or members right upto the final resolution of the dispute, if any, concerning the election is regulated by the Representation of the People Act, 1951, different stages of the process being dealt with by different provisions of the Act. It was held that the provisions of Civil Procedure Code applies to election petition by virtue of Section 87(1), but its applicability to the proceedings of election petition is subject to provisions of the Representation of People Act and any rules framed thereunder. 14. It was held that the provisions of Civil Procedure Code applies to election petition by virtue of Section 87(1), but its applicability to the proceedings of election petition is subject to provisions of the Representation of People Act and any rules framed thereunder. 14. In Azhar Hussain, supra it was held by the Supreme Court that an election petition can be or may be dismissed under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code if the mandatory requirements enjoined by Section 83 to incorporate the materials facts and particulars relating to alleged corrupt practice in the election petition are not complied with. The Code of Civil Procedure applies to the trial of an election petition by virtue of section 87 of the Act. Since CPC is applicable, the Court trying the election petition can act in exercise of the powers of the Code including Order 6, Rule 16 and Order 7, Rule 11 (a). An election petition can be summarily dismissed in exercise of the powers under the Civil Procedure Code if it does not furnish cause of action. It is settled law that the omission of a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action and that an election petition without the material facts relating to a corrupt practice is not an election petition at all. The contention that even in such a situation, the election petition can be dismissed only after recording evidence and not at the threshold, was rejected as being thoroughly misconceived and unsustainable. It was held that even in an ordinary civil litigation, the Court readily exercises the power to reject a plaint if it does not disclose any cause of action or the power to direct the concerned party to strike out unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexations parts of the pleadings. It is all the more a reason why in democratic set-up in regard to a matter pertaining to an elected representative of the people, which is likely to inhibit him in the discharge of his duties towards the Nation, the controversy is not set at rest at the earliest if the facts of the case and the law so warrant. 15. 15. In Bhagwati Prasad Dixit 'Ghorewala, supra, the Supreme Court held that in election petition pleadings have to be precise, specific and unambiguous and if the election petition does not disclose cause of action, it is liable to be rejected in limine. If the allegation in the election petition do not disclose any cause of action, the High Court would be justified in dismissing such election petition on that ground alone. Again in Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal, supra it was held by the Supreme Court that if the election petition does not disclose any cause of action, it would be justified in striking out the pleadings. Order 6, Rule 16 CPC itself empowers the court to strike out pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, which may even be before filing of the written-statement. In Samar Singh, supra, the Supreme Court held that if an election petition does not disclose cause of action, it may be dismissed summarily at the threshold under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and if this can be done at the threshold, the election petition can also be rejected at any stage of subsequent proceedings, even after framing of issues. There is no restriction placed by the statutory provisions contained in Representation of People Act. It is open to the Court to exercise such power at any stage. 16. In V.S. Achuthanandan, supra, the Supreme Court had the occasion to deal with an election matter wherein allegations were made that (i) 2100 excess ballot papers were got printed and retained by Election Registration Officer, who had an affiliation or intimation with the political party to which returned candidate belonged, (ii) that number of ballots polled were found in excess of the ballot papers issued to different polling stations and (iii) that a number of ballot papers issued and used for election of parliamentary candidates were found to have been mixed up with legislative assembly ballot papers. The first allegation was explained by the Election Registration Officer stating that some number of excess ballot papers are required to be printed as some ballot papers may be defective and may have to be rejected and provision has to be therefore made for unforeseen myriad contingencies by keeping a few ballot papers in reserve. The first allegation was explained by the Election Registration Officer stating that some number of excess ballot papers are required to be printed as some ballot papers may be defective and may have to be rejected and provision has to be therefore made for unforeseen myriad contingencies by keeping a few ballot papers in reserve. The second contention was also rejected observing that it may be possible that a voter or two, despite having been issued ballot papers to them, decided not to cast the votes and took away and wasted the same. Mixing of the Form no.16 of the Parliament and the Legislative Assembly constituency for both of which election took place at the same time and votes were cast simultaneously, was held to be bona fide and inadvertent. In those facts, it was held that the election petition did not disclose any cause of action and was held to have been rightly dismissed. 17. In Hari Shanker Jain, supra it was held by the Supreme Court that failure to plead material facts is fatal to the election petition. The Court is duty bound to examine the petition, regardless of written statement or denial in some other form and to reject it if it does not disclose a cause of action. The allegation in that petition was that Smt. Sonia Gandhi was an Italian national and a citizen of Italy and that she married to late Shri Rajiv Gandhi and that the marriage was null and void and though she acquired indian citizenship on the ground of having married with an indian citizen, she was not eligible to be registered as a citizen on that ground because she had never renounced her citizenship of Italy. The allegation was held to be scondulous and it was held that election petition did not disclose the basis or source of the knowledge of that averment. It was held that omission of single material fact lead to incomplete cause of action and statement of claim becomes bad. The function of the party is to present as full a picture of the cause of action with such further information in detail as to make the opposite party understand the case he will have to meet. The Election Petition was therefore held to have been rightly dismissed. 18. The function of the party is to present as full a picture of the cause of action with such further information in detail as to make the opposite party understand the case he will have to meet. The Election Petition was therefore held to have been rightly dismissed. 18. In Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar, supra, the Supreme Court held that an election petition can be immediately dismissed if it does not disclose any action of action and appropriate orders in exercise of the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure can be passed if the mandatory requirements enjoined by Section 83 of the Act to incorporate the material facts in the election petition are not complied with. It was held that material facts are facts which are necessary to formulate a complete cause of action, which must be pleaded by the party in support of the case within the period of limitation. Failure to plead a single material fact may result in dismissal of the election petition. Its object and purpose is to ensure that a party cannot be allowed to lead any evidence in absence of pleading. 19. In D.P. Sharma, supra also, the Supreme Court was dealing with a case wherein the election petition was filed pointing out discrepancies in the records that were required to be prepared as per Conduct of Election Rules, 1967 especially those in Form 16 and 20. It was alleged that at some polling station, total ballot papers, which were actually found in the ballot boxes at the time of counting were in excess of the ballot papers, which were used by the voters. In some cases, least ballot papers were found than were actually used by the voters. The allegation was that such discrepancy clearly showed that the entire process of counting was improper and not carried out in the prescribed manner as per the Statute, and therefore this should be regarded as good ground making out a case of recount. The Supreme Court held that the discrepancy as regards the finding of lesser ballot papers in ballot box than what had been issued and used by the voters is easily understandable, for it is quite conceivable that some voters, who had got ballot papers issued to them might have walked out of the polling booths without actually casting them in the ballot boxes and such discrepancy, which is not of much significance. In order to obtain recount of votes, a proper foundation is required to be laid by the election petitioner indicating the precise material on the basis of which, it could be urged by him with some substance that there has been either improper reception of invalid votes in favour of the elected candidate or improper rejection of valid votes in favour of the defeated candidate or wrong counting of votes in favour of the elected candidate, which had in reality been cast in favour of the defeated candidate. No such material was placed by the appellant either before the High Court or before the Supreme Court in that case. It was therefore held that the election petition was therefore dismissed. 20. While para nos.1 to 4 are formal in nature, but if the pleadings as contained thereafter in para 5 to 10 and ground A to D are examined on the touch stone of the settled proposition of law as noticed above, this Court is inclined to uphold the objection raised by the respondent that the petition indeed does not disclose any cause of action and in that view of the matter, it does not deserve to proceed for a full fledged trial. All that has been alleged in para 5 of the election petition is that the Returning Officer for the constituency of Laxmangarh prepared a turn out report for each polling station showing details of date of poll, number of EVM, the voters turned out, votes found in the EVM as per item no.5 of form 17-C of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, tendered ballot papers and identification of the voters with the help of electors photo identity cards and using other identification documents. This is a matter of fact usual to any election and this therefore by itself does not even raise any ground referable to Section 100(1)(d)(iii). 21. Para 6 alleges that Presiding Officer prepared diary in respect of each of the polling stations, certified copies whereof were obtained by the petitioner, but in the case of polling booth nos.99 and 102, such diaries were not provided to him. In polling booth no.99, turn out of voters was 622 as against total 1080 electors and in respect of polling booth no.102, 795 voters turned out as against 1190 electors. In polling booth no.99, turn out of voters was 622 as against total 1080 electors and in respect of polling booth no.102, 795 voters turned out as against 1190 electors. This pleading does not convey either improper reception, refusal or rejection of any votes or reception of any vote which is void. Preparation of diary of each polling booth by the Presiding Officer is not referable to any of the Rules of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Moreover, what is alleged is that petitioner applied for and was not supplied with the certified copies of the diaries of the aforesaid two polling booth. There is however no pleading to the effect that diaries for two polling booths were not prepared. 22. Averments in para 7 are merely matters of facts which indicates that the petitioner has secured 31671 votes as against 31705 votes secured by respondent no.1, the returned candidate and therefore he was declared elected. The total number of votes that were cast as per the final result sheet was 1,28,363 out of which 1,28,343 were counted and remaining 20 votes were held invalid. 23. In para 8, however, it has been alleged that in respect of polling station no.20, total number of valid votes were 366 whereas in the result sheet prepared by the respondent, it has been shown in respect of that polling station that 263 votes were such, who were identified with the use of voters identity card and 100 voters were such who were identified with the help of alternate document, total of which became 363, whereas 366 votes were shown to have been counted. Similar assertion is made in respect of polling station no.28 where 343 votes were shown to have been identified by use of voters identity card and 26 by use of alternate document total of which became 369 whereas in the result sheet 368 were shown to have been counted, which was less than 1 vote polled. Similarly in polling station no.191 as against 736 polled votes, 740 votes were shown to have been counted which was in excess by four votes. 24. Similarly in polling station no.191 as against 736 polled votes, 740 votes were shown to have been counted which was in excess by four votes. 24. In para 9, it is alleged in respect of polling station no.99 that 545 votes were identified by use of voters identity cards and 77 by use of alternative documents, the total of which became 545, but the Presiding Officer of the Assembly constituency did not provide the polling booth diary, therefore petitioner was deprived to verify the validity of the votes polled and counted in that booth. Similarly, in respect of polling station no.102 also it was alleged that 627 votes were identified by use of voters identity cards and 168 by use of alternate documents, thus total of which was 795, but since the copy of the polling booth diary was not provided, petitioner could not tally these figures with those contained in the result sheet. 25. Curiously enough, the petitioner has not alleged infraction of any of the Rules contained in Chapter-II of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 which pertains to voting by EVMs. Those provisions contain a full proof mechanism by which secrecy and sanctity of the election can be ensured with the use of Electronic Voting Machines. Section 49E provided for preparation of voting machines for poll which shall bear a lable market with serial number and the name of the constituency, serial number and name of the polling station and the serial number of the unit and the date of polling. The Presiding Officer is required to demonstrate such machines to the polling agents and other persons present that no voter has been already recorded in the voting machine and it bears the seal referred to in sub-rule (4). A paper seal shall be used for securing the control unit of the voting machine and the presiding officer shall affix his own signature on the paper seal and obtain thereon the signature of such of the polling agents. The seal used for securing the control shall be fixed in such a manner that after the unit has been sealed, it is not possible to press the `result button' without breaking the seal. 26. The seal used for securing the control shall be fixed in such a manner that after the unit has been sealed, it is not possible to press the `result button' without breaking the seal. 26. Rule 49L of the Rules of 1961 provides that before permitting an elector to vote, the polling officer shall record the electoral roll number of the elector as entered in the marked copy of the electoral roll in a register of votes in Form 17-A and obtain his signature or thumb impression therein and mark his name in the marked copy of the electoral roll to indicate that he has been allowed to vote. Rule 49 O has provided that if an elector after his electoral roll number has been duly entered in the register of voters in Form 17A and has put his signature or thumb impression thereon as required under sub-rule (1) of Rule 49L, decided not to record his vote, a remark to this effect shall be made against the said entry in Form 17A by the Presiding Officer and the signature or thumb impression of the elector shall be obtained against such remark. Section 49S provides that the Presiding Officer shall at the close of the poll prepare an account of votes recorded in Form 17C and enclose it in a separate cover cover with the words Account of Votes Recorded superscribed thereon. He shall furnish to every polling agent present at the close of the poll a true copy of the entries made in Form 17C after obtaining a receipt from the said polling agent therefor and shall attest it as a true copy. Rule 49T provides that after closing of the poll, the presiding officer shall close the control unit to ensure that no further votes can be recorded and shall detach the balloting unit from the control unit, both of which, shall thereafter be sealed and secured separately in the manner provided and seal used for securing them shall be so affixed that it will not be possible to open the units without breaking the seals. The polling agents present at the polling station, who desire to affix their seals shall also be permitted to do so. 27. The polling agents present at the polling station, who desire to affix their seals shall also be permitted to do so. 27. Surprisingly, the petitioner in the present election petition has built his case entirely on the basis of diary to be prepared at each polling station, wherefor there is no statutory backing, but has not uttered a single word about form no.17-C supplied to his polling agents at each polling station, who also had the opportunity to make their signatures on the seal affixed on the voting machines of each polling station before the commencement of the polling and at the close of the polling. No pleading has been made in any of the paras of the election petition that seal of any of the electronic voting machines, when they were opened during counting, was found to have been tempered with or were otherwise found broken. Nothing has been said about form no.-17C of polling station no.20, 28 and 191 or for that matter, polling station no.99 and 102. Averments in paras 6 and 9 are thus based more on inferences drawn by the petitioner on account of mere non supply of diary for the aforesaid two polling stations wherefor the petitioner even does not plead that such diaries in respect of those two polling station were not prepared by the polling officer. What he has pleaded is that petitioner obtained certified copies of each and every polling station of Laxmangarh constituency, but out of 215 polling stations, the diary of polling booth no.99 and that of the polling booth no.102 have not been provided. It has also not been alleged whether the details of the votes polled as indicated in Part-I of Form no.17-C, did not match with the counted votes shown in the final result sheet. 28. As regards the pleadings in paras 7, 8 and 9, all that petitioner has asserted is that the votes as indicated in result sheet prepared by the returning officer under Rule 26 (g)(a) did not tally with the assembly wise sheet prepared by the respondent, by which he probably means to convey the assembly wise result sheet prepared by the Election Commission. This can be the result of the mistake or inadvertence on the part of its staff, but this certainly, cannot become a ground of improper reception, refusal, or rejection of any vote or in respect of any vote which is void. As regards the plea that in polling station no.28, as against the 369 votes, were shown to have been polled and only 368 votes have been actually found to have been cast in voting machine, explanation for this is very much available in Rule 49 O which has recognised a possibility of an elector having entered the voting booth and after entry of his name in the electoral roll and signing or putting the thumb impression in the register of voters in Form 17A as required by sub-rule (1) of Rule 49L and then deciding not to record his vote. Pleadings in those paras must be therefore held to be highly vague, unambiguous and unspecific, not disclosing any cause of action for trial of an election petition. 29. Adverting now to assertion made in pleadings in para 10, what the petitioner has alleged therein is that in the Laxmangarh constituency, i.e. the assembly constituency in question, 459 postal ballots were received out of which 20 votes were rejected which were 4.55% of total, while in all other adjoining assembly constituencies namely in Dhod, out of 416 postal votes, 110 votes were rejected amounting to 26%, in Sikar assembly constituency out of 524 postal votes, 245 votes were rejected amounting to 46%, in Khandela assembly constituency out of 475 postal votes, 99 votes were cancelled amounting to 20%, in Srimadhopur assembly constituency out of 480 votes, 39 votes were rejected amounting to 8%, in Fatehpur assembly constituency out of 354 postal votes, 74 votes were rejected amounting to 21%. The percentage of rejection in Laxmangarh assembly constituency was thus very nominal at only 4.55%, whereas in all adjoining assembly constituencies proportion of rejection of postal ballots as against total was quite high. The percentage of rejection in Laxmangarh assembly constituency was thus very nominal at only 4.55%, whereas in all adjoining assembly constituencies proportion of rejection of postal ballots as against total was quite high. Having pleaded so, the petitioner went on to allege that at the time of counting, he objected to Presiding Officer about this, but he handed over such postal votes to the Subordinate Officers, who were not well versed in counting the postal votes and due to their want of knowledge, only 20 votes out of 459 were rejected although out of the postal votes which were counted more than 200 have not been verified by the gazetted officer, as such were not valid votes, therefore, could not have been taken into consideration. In case, such invalid postal votes which were illegally counted in favour of the returned candidate and for want of verification of signature by any gazetted officer or the presiding officer of the polling station the same had been rejected then the votes secured by the petitioner would have been more than what he had secured and shown in the result sheet. 30. As would be seen from the extracted portion of para 10 of the election petition, pleadings in that para are highly vague. Petitioner wants this Court to believe on the basis of inferential facts that since in all adjoining constituencies, the percentage of the rejected votes was much higher as compared to the small percentage of votes rejected in Laxmangarh constituency, therefore, his suggestion is that more than 200 postal ballots, which were accepted as valid, were in fact liable to be rejected, as they were not attested by gazetted officer and then he alleges that such invalid postal ballots were illegally counted in favour of the returned candidate and if those votes were in fact rejected, then the petitioner would have secured more votes than the respondent no.1. In the first place, it should be noted that total number of votes which the respondent-returned candidate secured out of the postal ballots was only 182 and therefore there was no question of 200 invalid votes being counted in his favour. Secondly, rejection of the postal ballots in higher proportion out of total postal ballots in adjoining constituencies by itself may not be a reason to presume that invalid votes may have been accepted as valid in the counting of this constituency. Secondly, rejection of the postal ballots in higher proportion out of total postal ballots in adjoining constituencies by itself may not be a reason to presume that invalid votes may have been accepted as valid in the counting of this constituency. Thirdly, as per the provisions contained in Rule 54A, the returned officer is duty obliged to first deal with the postal ballot papers in the manner provided. 31. There is a detailed procedure to be followed for counting of postal ballots, which can be briefly re-capitulated here. Rule 54A provides that no cover in Form 13C received by the returning officer after the expiry of the time fixed in that behalf shall be opened and no vote contained in any such cover shall be counted. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 54A provides that the other covers shall be opened one after another and as each cover is opened, the returning officer shall first scrutinise the declaration in Form 13A contained therein. Sub-rule-(4) provides that if the said declaration is not found, or has not been duly signed and attested, or is otherwise substantially defective, or if the serial number of the ballot paper as entered in it differs from the serial number endorsed on the cover in Form 13B, that cover shall not be opened and after making an appropriate endorsement thereon, the returning officer shall reject the ballot paper therein contained. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 54A provides that each cover so endorsed and the declaration received with it shall be replaced in the cover in Form 13C and all such covers in Form 13C shall be kept in a separate packet, which shall be sealed and on which shall be recorded the name of the constituency, the date of counting and a brief description of its content. Sub-rule (6) provides that returning officer shall then place all the declarations in Form 13A which he has found to be in order in a separate packet which shall be sealed before any cover in Form 13B is opened and on which shall be recorded the particulars referred to in sub-rule (5). Then sub-rule (7) provides that covers in Form 13B not already dealt with under the foregoing provisions of this rule shall then be opened one after another and the returning officer shall scrutinise each ballot paper and decide the validity of the vote recorded thereon. Then sub-rule (7) provides that covers in Form 13B not already dealt with under the foregoing provisions of this rule shall then be opened one after another and the returning officer shall scrutinise each ballot paper and decide the validity of the vote recorded thereon. It is thus evident that Form-13B is the cover which contains the postal ballot, which is accompanied by the declaration in Form 13A, both of which are to be placed in the cover having Form 13C affixed thereon. After observing the details contained in Form 13C, the cover in Form 13C is required to be opened and the first thing that the returning officer is required to do is to scrutinise the declaration in Form 13A. He is authorised to open the cover in Form 13B only after he has scrutinised the declaration in Form 13A in respect of all the covers received in Form 13C and found it in order. It is only thereafter that he shall open the covers in Form 13B not already dealt with one after another, to decide the validity of vote. 32. Nothing has been averred in whole of the petition as to whether petitioner objected in writing to the returning officer about the acceptance of postal ballots not having attestation or if the returning officer did not entertain his objection, he took up the matter with the District Election Officer or the Central Observer of Election Commission. Then the further assertion that the Presiding Officer handed over such postal ballots to subordinate officers is also highly vague and unspecific because who were those subordinate officers, has not been specified. By use of the words subordinate officers, the petitioner is seeking to suggest more number of officers than merely one. It is not clear whether or not, they were or if not all of them, to whom according to the petitioner the Presiding Officer handed over the postal ballots, were/was notified as assisting returning officer. By use of the words subordinate officers, the petitioner is seeking to suggest more number of officers than merely one. It is not clear whether or not, they were or if not all of them, to whom according to the petitioner the Presiding Officer handed over the postal ballots, were/was notified as assisting returning officer. It may be at this juncture noted that definition of the returning officer in Rule 2(j) also includes any assistant returning officer performing any function he is authorised to perform under sub-section (2) of Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which authorised him to perform any of the functions of the returning officer, subject to control by him except the functions relating to scrutiny of nomination, unless the returning officer is unavoidably interrupted from performing such functions. 33. Pleadings in ground A of the election petition are nothing but repetition of the pleadings already made in para 8. Similarly, pleadings in ground B is repetition of what has been already pleaded in paras 5 and 9. The pleading in ground C is reiteration of the pleadings already made in para 10 about the postal ballots. Ground D contains the bald allegation that petitioner objected to illegalities in recounting held at place of counting making allegation of incorrect counting of the votes and reception of the postal votes, which were not verified by the gazette officer with the signature of the person, who sent the postal votes, but the returning officer neither acceded the request, nor accepted the application in writing submitted by the petitioner then and there and the same were returned back, as such the petitioner has become entitled for recounting of the votes. It is not clear as to what is meant by then and there. What emerges from the documents filed along with the election petition is that he submitted such application after the counting was over and not at any point of time therebefore. This kind of pleading is an allegation of corrupt practice, which falls within the purview of Section 100(1)(d)(ii) of the Act of 1951, wherefor not only necessary material facts, but full material particulars, in view of Section 83(1)(b) of the Act of 1951, have to be furnished by the election petitioner, whereas there are none in this petition. This kind of pleading is an allegation of corrupt practice, which falls within the purview of Section 100(1)(d)(ii) of the Act of 1951, wherefor not only necessary material facts, but full material particulars, in view of Section 83(1)(b) of the Act of 1951, have to be furnished by the election petitioner, whereas there are none in this petition. The election petition, containing allegations of corrupt practice has to be supported not just by verification by the petitioner, but as per proviso to Section 83(1) where the petitioner alleged any corrupt practice, is required to be accompanied by the affidavit in the prescribed form, in support of such allegation of corrupt practice and particulars thereof, which requirement has not been followed in the present case. 34. This being an election petition not containing material facts and particulars, does not conform to the requirement of Section 83, inasmuch as it also does not disclose any cause of action because the petition does not contain material facts, much less any fact, which may prima facie appear to have materially affected result of the election as envisaged by Section 100(1)(d) of the Act of 1951. The pleadings of the material facts are nebulous, vague, unspecific, unclear and bald and do not come within the ambit of the required standards. Issue nos.7, 8 and 9 are thus decided in favour of respondent-returned candidate and against the petitioner. Consequently, application filed under Order 6, Rule 16 and Order 7, Rule 11 CPC deserves to succeed. This election petition is therefore liable to be dismissed in view of provisions of Section 86 and 87 of the Act and Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC as the same does not disclose any cause of action. 35. This election petition is accordingly dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.Election petition dismissed. *******