ORDER Misc. Case No.87 of 2014 19.12.2014This is an application under Order 6 Rule 16 and Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. read with Sections 83 and 86 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short, the Act) arising out Election Petition No.7 of 2014. 2.The present petitioner is respondent No.1 in the election petition. He is declared to be the returned candidate in respect of 118-Chilika Assembly Constituency. The opposite party No.1 is the election petitioner. 3.Challenging the validity of the election result going in favour of respondent No.1 the election petition has been filed on the ground that irregularities have been committed in respect of specific booths inasmuch as votes have been improperly counted to the advantage of the returned candidate adopting corrupt practice by government officials entrusted with the conduct of the election in connivance with the returned candidate which has materially affected the result of the election. 4.Respondent No.1 has filed the present misc. case along with his written statement with a prayer to reject the election petition at the threshold on the grounds, inter alia, that the election petition does not contain a concise statement of the material facts as required under Section 83(1)(a) of the Act and that requirement of Sections 83, 100(1), 101 and 123 of the Act have not been satisfied. In the counter to the misc. petition the election petitioner has asserted that there has been due compliance of the mandatory requirements of the Act. It is also asserted that the petitioner has not only furnished a concise statement of material facts in his election petition, but has also mentioned detailed particulars as to how there has been complete departure from the requirements of mandatory provisions contained in the Act read with the Election Rules as well as the Orders made under the Act for conduct of polling and counting of votes. It is further asserted that the material facts that have been pleaded in the election petition do make out a cause of action for trial of an election petition. It is further asserted that the material facts that have been pleaded in the election petition do make out a cause of action for trial of an election petition. 5.The election is under challenge on the grounds (i) non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or any Rule or Orders made under the Act (ii) improper reception and counting of votes and (iii) corrupt practice committed in the interest of the return candidate by Government Officers, who were engaged in conducting the election, with the connivance of the returned candidate. 6.In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi : AIR 1986 SC 1253 it is held that an election petition can be summarily dismissed if it does not furnish cause of action in exercise of the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure. So also it emerges from the aforesaid decision that appropriate orders in exercise of powers under the Code of Civil Procedure can be passed if the mandatory requirements enjoyed by Section 83 of the Act to incorporate the material facts in the election petition are not complied with. 7.As to the contents of an election petition Section 83 of the Act lays down that it shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies and, if corrupt practice has been alleged, then it shall set forth full particulars of such corrupt practice including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice. It further lays down that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof. 8.However, reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the Election Petitioner in H.D. Revanna v. G. Puttaswamy Gowda and others, reported in (1999) 2 Supreme Court Cases 217 to support his contention that with the material facts pleaded in the Election Petition the same cannot be rejected at the threshold. In this cited case the following observations have been made while dealing with the distinction between material facts and material particulars : This Court has repeatedly pointed out the distinction between “material facts” and “particulars”. In this cited case the following observations have been made while dealing with the distinction between material facts and material particulars : This Court has repeatedly pointed out the distinction between “material facts” and “particulars”. Insofar as “material facts” are concerned, this Court has held that they should be fully set out in the election petition and if any fact is not set out, the petitioner cannot be permitted to adduce the evidence relating thereto later; nor will he be permitted to amend the petition after expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for an election petition. As regards particulars, the consistent view expressed by this Court is that the petition cannot be dismissed in limine for want of particulars and if the Court finds that particulars are necessary, an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to amend the petition and include the particulars. The Constitution Bench in Balwan Singh v. Lakshmi Narain held that an election petition was not liable to be dismissed in limine merely because full particulars of a corrupt practice alleged were not set out. It was observed that if an objection was taken and the tribunal was of the view that particulars had not been set out, the petitioner had to be given an opportunity to amend or amplify the particulars and that it was only in the event of non-compliance with the order to supply the particulars, the charge could be struck out. 9.In the same judgment the apex Court observes in para-27 of the judgment that the test in all cases of preliminary objection is to see whether any of the reliefs prayed for could be granted to the petitioner if the averments made in the petition are proved to be true. If the answer to the question is in the affirmative, the maintainability of the petition has to be upheld. Similar observation is made in D. Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman and others [ (1999) 3 SCC 267 which is also cited by the learned counsel for the Election Petitioner]. If the answer to the question is in the affirmative, the maintainability of the petition has to be upheld. Similar observation is made in D. Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman and others [ (1999) 3 SCC 267 which is also cited by the learned counsel for the Election Petitioner]. In para-14 of the said judgment (H.D. Revanana’s case) the apex Court has, however, further laid down that non-compliance with Section 83 of the Act may lead to dismissal of the election petition if the matter falls within the scope of Order 6 Rule 16 or Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C. It is further observed that defect in verification of the election petition or the affidavit accompanying the election petition is curable and not fatal. 10.In Umesh Challiyill v. K.P. Rajendran, reported in (2008) 11 Supreme Court Cases 740, the following observation has been made in para-19 of the judgment which is necessary for guidance while deciding as to what should the election petition contain where the election has been challenged on the ground of corrupt practice : In R.P. Moidutty v. P.T. Kunju Mohammad Their Lordships have expressed that heavy onus lies on the election petitioner seeking setting aside of the election of a successful candidate to make out a clear case for such relief both in the pleadings and at the trial. The mandate of the people should not be interfered with lightly and it emphasized that under Section 83 of the Act ordinarily it would suffice if the election petition contains a concise statement of the material facts relied on by the petitioner but in the case of corrupt practice the election petition must set forth full particulars thereof including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice, the date and place of the commission of each such practice. 11.In Ravinder Singh v. Janmeja Singh and others, reported in (2000) 8 Supreme Court Cases 191, it is observed that in respect of alleged corrupt practice the election petitioner is obliged to disclose his source of information in respect of the commission of the alleged corrupt practice which is necessary to prevent any fishing and roving inquiry and save the returned candidate fresh being taken by surprise. 12.In a recent decision reported in 2014 (II) CLR (SC) - 839 (C.P. John v. Babu M. Pallissery and others.) it is observed that an election petition should set forth full particulars of the alleged corrupt practice and while doing so it should specially state the names of the parties who are alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and also the date and place where such corrupt practice was committed. In other words, it is observed, the particulars relating to corrupt practice should not be lacking in any respect. In para-20 of the said judgment it is further observed as follows :- “Therefore, a conspectus reading of Section 83 (1)(a) read along with its proviso of the Act, as well as, Rule 94A and Form No.25 of the Rules make the legal position clear that in the filing of an Election Petition challenging the successful election of a candidate, the election petitioner should take extra care and leave no room for doubt while making any allegation of corrupt practice indulged in by the successful candidate and that he cannot be later on heard to state that the allegations were generally spoken to or as discussed sporadically and on that basis the petition came to be filed. In other words, unless and until the election petitioner comes forward with a definite plea of his case that the allegation of corrupt practice is supported by legally acceptable material evidence without an iota of doubt as to such allegation, the Election petition cannot be entertained and will have to be rejected at the threshold. It will be relevant to state that since the successful candidate in an election has got the support of the majority of the voters who cast their votes in his favour, the success gained by a candidate in a public election cannot be allowed to be called in question by any unsuccessful candidate by making frivolous or baseless allegations and thereby unnecessarily drag the successful candidate to the Court proceedings and make waste of his precious time, which would have otherwise been devoted for the welfare of the members of his constituency. 13.Now coming to the election petition at hand, paragraphs 15(A) to 15(V) of the petition are the material facts stated in challenge of the Election of the returned candidate. These paragraphs contain the alleged corrupt practice of improper reception and improper counting of votes. 13.Now coming to the election petition at hand, paragraphs 15(A) to 15(V) of the petition are the material facts stated in challenge of the Election of the returned candidate. These paragraphs contain the alleged corrupt practice of improper reception and improper counting of votes. The election petitioner has furnished, in Para-15(A) to 15(M) and 15(V), a booth-wise description of irregularities/illegalities allegedly committed in the maintenance of different statutory forms. The same are analysed hereunder in the light of the observations made in different case laws cited above. (a)In respect of Booth No.30, it is alleged, the Presiding Officer has omitted to mention in Column No.6 of Form 17-C (Part-II) the total number of votes recorded as per the voting machine which gives rise to a conclusion that manipulation has taken place at the time of counting. It is further contended that in Form No.17-C (Part-II) the votes polled are shown to have been added in two phases thereby giving rise to an inference that two EVMs were used at the time of the poll but, in Form 17-C (Part-I) only one EVM is shown to have been used. A perusal of para-15(B) of the petition gives rise to an inference that 1077 voters had cast their votes in Booth No.30 and as many votes were counted. The election petitioner, on the aforestated ground, claims that these are invalid/illegal votes and contends that counting of such illegal votes materially affects the result of the election inasmuch as the slender margin of votes secured by the election petitioner on one hand and R-1 on the other is 541. But, it is not specifically pleaded as to what illegalities were committed by either the Presiding Officer or the Returning Officer and whether any objection was raised at the time of counting of the votes. Mere omission to fill up columns of prescribed forms or incorrect recording of facts and figures as complained of do not render otherwise valid votes liable to be rejected. As regards the objection regarding the number of EVM used in Booth No.30 there is no specific pleading that votes recorded in any EVM which was not used at Booth No.30 during the polling was accepted for counting and that there was objection thereto. As regards the objection regarding the number of EVM used in Booth No.30 there is no specific pleading that votes recorded in any EVM which was not used at Booth No.30 during the polling was accepted for counting and that there was objection thereto. (b)As regards Booth Nos.32, 61, 106, 176 and 228 it is alleged that the serial numbers of the Balloting Unit and the Control Unit of the EVMs used for polling at those booths do not tally with each other which according to the Election Petitioner is sufficient to declare the election void. There is no pleading as to how the serial numbers of Balloting Unit and Controlling Unit do not tally and how does it affect the result of the election. Particulars of the serial numbers of the Ballotting and Control Units are not furnished. (c)In respect of Both No.54, it is stated that 1031 voters put their signatures in Form 17-A (Register of Voters) but the Returning Officer has shown that 1032 votes have been counted. It is alleged that in a number of polling booths similar type of variation has occurred. The basis of the knowledge as to the contents of Register of voters maintained in Form 17-A, which is kept confidential, is not disclosed by the petitioner. In para-42 of the judgment Jitu Patnaik v. Sanatan Mohakud and others : (2012) 4 SCC 194 , it is observed that Register of voters in Form 17-A is not available for inspection and the closed cover in which it is kept in the custody of the Returning Officer is not opened except under order of a competent Court. There is no averment that either the election petitioner or any of his polling agents had perused the Register of Voters maintained in Form 17-A. It is pleaded that had the extra votes been counted in favour of the Election Petitioner he would have been declared elected but, such votes were counted in favour of R-1. This statement which is quite vague and baseless is not supported by any material particulars. (d)In respect of Booth No.58, it is pleaded that 719 votes were polled but the Returning Officer has shown to have counted 712 votes. It is alleged that Column-6 of Form 17-C (Part-I) has been left blank which gives rise to a presumption that manipulation has taken place at the time of counting. (d)In respect of Booth No.58, it is pleaded that 719 votes were polled but the Returning Officer has shown to have counted 712 votes. It is alleged that Column-6 of Form 17-C (Part-I) has been left blank which gives rise to a presumption that manipulation has taken place at the time of counting. But the election petitioner has failed to mention as to how and where the manipulation took place and who manipulated the counting. It is also not stated that any objection was raised at the time of counting. It is also not pleaded as to how leaving Column No.6 blank would materially affect the result of election. (e)In respect of Booth No.185, it is claimed that there has been no mention of Control Unit and Polling Unit in Form 17-C (Part-I) thereby making the identity of the voting machine doubtful. In this regard also the material facts in support of such contention are not pleaded. It is rightly argued by learned counsel for R-1 that the petitioner ought to have mentioned which voting machine was notified to be used in the said booth and which voting machine was actually used. (f)It is further alleged that Form 17-C (Part-I) related to Booth No.197 does not reflect the number of electors (Col.1) and the total number of voters (Col.2) whereas the Presiding Officer has stated in Column No.6 of the form that 512 votes were polled. it is claimed that this being improper forms a ground to declare the election void. But, it is not pleaded as to how this has materially affected result of the election. It is also not claimed with material particulars as to whether the number of votes actually polled and counted was either more or less than 512. (g)In respect of Booth No.199, the Presiding Officer has recorded 637 votes to have been polled but subsequently the figure has been manipulated and converted to 673. It is not pleaded as to when and by whom the alleged manipulation was done and whether any objection was raised. Mere overwriting for the purpose of correction of wrong entry does not amount to manipulation. (h)It is alleged that in Form 17-C in respect of Booth No.206, the number of voters entered in the voters register (Form 17-A) has not been reflected. Only the number of electors assigned to the booth is reflected as 903. Mere overwriting for the purpose of correction of wrong entry does not amount to manipulation. (h)It is alleged that in Form 17-C in respect of Booth No.206, the number of voters entered in the voters register (Form 17-A) has not been reflected. Only the number of electors assigned to the booth is reflected as 903. Column No.6 of Form 17-C (Part-I) is left blank. With this pleading it is contended that such omission gives rise to a conclusion that manipulation has taken place at the time of counting and the votes polled at that Booth should not have been counted. (h-i)In respect of Booth No.216, it is alleged that total number of voters assigned to the booth is reflected in Form 17-C (Part-I) as 877 whereas the total number of voters entered in the register is reflected in Column No.2 of Form 17-C (Part-I) s 1800. In Col.6 of the Form it is stated that 630 votes were polled. (h-ii)The EVM used at Booth No.222 shows the number “K-73268” as the Control Unit number as well as the Balloting Unit number as would be evident from Form 17-C (Part-I). It is claimed that serial number of both the units cannot be one and the same. (h-iii)In respect of Both No.233, it is pleaded that Column Nos.1, 2 and 6 of Form 17-C Part-I have been left blank and the Presiding Officer of the polling booth has not signed in that form. Even the polling station number is not mentioned in that form. It is asserted that this being the petitioner’s pocket area and in the year 2009 General Assembly Election he had a comfortable lead in the said booth over his nearest rival, he would have got more than 500 votes in the year 2014 election but the Returning Officer and the Counting Supervisor did intentional manipulation in the process of counting to the advantage of respondent No.1. (h-iv)In respect of Booth No.197, it is pleaded that the total number of female voters as per the revised Electoral Roll is 307 whereas the voters turn out report indicates that 315 female voters have cast their votes. While taking these grounds the election petitioner has not made any averment as to how and where any manipulation had taken place; whether any objection was raised at the right movement; and what way the result of the election has been materially affected thereby. While taking these grounds the election petitioner has not made any averment as to how and where any manipulation had taken place; whether any objection was raised at the right movement; and what way the result of the election has been materially affected thereby. 14.Learned counsel for the Respondent has cited the judgment reported in (2012) 4 Supreme Court Cases 194 (Jitu Patnaik v. Sanatan Mahakud and others) which provides necessary guidance for deciding as to whether the pleadings in the Election Petition has set out the material fats to constitute any cause of action. The Election Petitioner in the said reported case had pleaded in 1st part of paragraph-7 (D) of his Election Petition as under : “7. (D) The petitioner further gives a concise statement of material fact exposing a glaring instance of illegality deliberately committed by the counting personnel while recording the counting figure in Form 20 with respect to Booth No.179, Urdu Madrasa Champua Alinagar Booth. The total number of voters as recorded in the electoral roll with respect to Booth No.179 is 1109. Whereas in Form 17-C, certified copy, deliberately this figure has been shown wrongly as 1091. On the date of polling on a plain perusal of the register of voters maintained in Form 17-A, it will be abundantly clear that the total number of voters came to vote and signed 17-A Register is 1091 whereas in Form 17-C, certified copy, it has been deliberately shown as 772 making a deliberate suppression of 319 voters.” 15.Analyzing the aforequoted pleadings the Hon’ble apex Court made the following observations contained in paragraphs 48 to 53 of the reported judgment : “48. A close analysis of the first part of Para 7 (D) of the election petition would show that the statements comprise the following facts : (i)Illegality deliberately committed by the counting personnel while recording the counting figure in Form 20 with respect to Booth No.179. (ii)The total number of voters as recorded in the electoral roll with respect to Booth No.179 is 1109. (iii) Whereas in Form 17-C, certified copy, deliberately this figure has been shown wrongly as 1091. (ii)The total number of voters as recorded in the electoral roll with respect to Booth No.179 is 1109. (iii) Whereas in Form 17-C, certified copy, deliberately this figure has been shown wrongly as 1091. (iv)On the date of polling, on a plain perusal of register of voters maintained in Form 17-A, it will be abundantly clear that the total number of voters who came to vote and signed 17-A Register is 1091; whereas in Form 17-C, it has been deliberately shown as 772 making a deliberate suppression of 319 votes. 49. Before we discuss the above pleadings further, it may be stated immediately that register of voters in Form 17-A is not available for inspection. Rule 93 of the 1961 Rules provides for the production and inspection of election papers. Clause (dd) of Rule 93 (1) makes a provision that the packets containing register of voters in Form 17-A, while in the custody of the District Election Officer or the Returning Officer, as the case may be, shall not be opened and their contents shall not be inspected by, or produced before, any person or authority except under the order of a competent Court. 50. We now revert back to the pleadings set out in Para 7(D) as analysed above. There is no averment that the election petitioner or any of his polling agents had perused the register of voters maintained in Form 17-A. The basis of the knowledge that the register of voters maintained in Form 17-A records that 1091 voters came to vote is not disclosed at all. Moreover, there is no pleading that 1091 voters who came to vote at Booth No.179 in fact voted. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Mukul Rohatgi that the facts stated in Para 7 (D) with regard to Form 17-A shall be established at the trial after Form 17-A is summoned by the Court. We are afraid that such fanciful imagination of proof at the trial cannot be a substitute of the pleading of material facts about the total number of voters who came to vote and in fact voted at Booth No.179. 51.The averment that in Form 17-C, certified copy, it has been deliberately shown as 772 making a deliberate suppression of 319 votes hardly improves the pleading in the election petition. 51.The averment that in Form 17-C, certified copy, it has been deliberately shown as 772 making a deliberate suppression of 319 votes hardly improves the pleading in the election petition. There is no averment that the election petitioner or his agents challenged Part II of Form 17-C before the authorities. At least, there are no facts pleaded concerning that. 52.There is no pleading that there was any challenge by the election petitioner or his agents in respect of the counting figure in Form 20. The only pleading is that the illegality has been deliberately committed by the counting personnel while recording the counting figure in Form 20 with respect to Booth No.179. There is, thus, no disclosure of material facts in respect of the challenge to the correctness of Forms 20 and Form 17-C. 53.The pleading of material facts with regard to suppression of 319 votes in Para 7 (D) is also incomplete as it has not been disclosed as to who suppressed 319 votes; who was the counting agent present on behalf of the election petitioner at the time of counting; how 319 votes were suppressed and why re-counting was not demanded. Moreover, there is no express pleading as to how the result of the election has been materially affected by less counting of 319 votes.” (emphasis supplied) 16.As already discussed, in the Election Petition at hand, similar pleadings have been made in respect of different booths. In this case also there is no averment that the Election Petitioner or any of his polling agents had perused the Register of voters maintained in Form 17-A. There is also no pleading that the number of voters who had come to vote at different boths had, in fact, voted. There is also no averment that the Election Petitioner or his agents had challenged Part-II of Form 17-C before the authorities concerned. There is also complete silence as to whether the counting agent present on behalf of the Election Petition at the time of counting had raised any objection on the alleged improper counting and whether there was any demand for recounting. There is also complete silence as to whether the counting agent present on behalf of the Election Petition at the time of counting had raised any objection on the alleged improper counting and whether there was any demand for recounting. 17.It is pleaded by the Election Petitioner that the Returning Officer, the Presiding Officer, the Counting Supervisors and other Government officials in connivance with the Respondent No.1 have adopted and committeed corrupt practice by allowing improper reception of votes in favour of Respondent No.1 though those were cast in favour of the Election Petitioner thereby materially affecting the result of the election. But, it is not specifically pleaded as to what type of assistance was obtained from whom with the date and place of commission of the alleged corrupt practice. Merely pointing out some apparent discrepancies appearing in the entries made in different forms the petitioner makes serious allegation like improper reception of votes as well as improper counting of votes. Such allegation is based on mere surmises. With such bald allegations the Election Petitioner wants re-counting of votes polled at all the Booths of the Assembly Constituency which would amount to collecting evidence for the petitioner with the assistance of the Court resulting in a roving enquiry. 18.In N.V. Narasimha Rao v. Somepalli Sambaiah, reported in AIR 1999 Andhra Pradesh 398, the election petitioner had alleged that votes cast validly in favour of election petitioner were declared invalid and votes validly cast in his faovur were counted in favour of the returned candidate with a view to help the returned candidate in improving his winning chances. Observing that the election petitioner had not mentioned the serial numbers of such ballot papers and on which counting table the alleged defect, irregularities or dishonesty was detected, and the source of information of declaring the valid votes invalid, it was held that the election regarding improper counting of votes were apparently based on doubt. With this observation the paragraphs containing such averments in the election petition was held to be incapable of making out a cause of action. The same thing can be said about the present election petitioner’s averment on the alleged improper reception and improper counting of votes. 19.The election petition under consideration does not set forth any material facts regarding improper reception and improper counting of votes. The same thing can be said about the present election petitioner’s averment on the alleged improper reception and improper counting of votes. 19.The election petition under consideration does not set forth any material facts regarding improper reception and improper counting of votes. Though it is alleged that the result of election is vitiated due to non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or any Rules or Orders made therein, it is not specifically pleaded as to what are the provisions of the Act/Rule/Order those have been not complied with and for such non-compliance the result of the election has been materially affected. 20.In Ram Sukh v. Dinesh Aggarwal, reported in (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 541, it is observed that instructions contained in a Handbook issued by the Election Commission for the Returning Officers to follow were allegedly not followed. Though it was pleaded that the instructions were not followed by the concerned Returning Officer such pleading was held to be vague inasmuch as it did not spell out as to how the election results were material affected. It is further observed that such pleading fell short of being construed as ‘material facts’ as contemplated in Section 83(1)(a) of the Act to constitute a complete cause of action in relation to the election under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act. It is further observed that for the purpose of Section 100(1)(d)(iv) it was necessary for the election petitioner in the reported case to aver specifically in what manner the result of the election was materially affected due to non-compliance of the instructions contained in the Handbook. On that ground the Election Petition was found to be liable for rejection. 21.According to the Election Petitioner, a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies has been given in para-15(A) to 15(V). The averments contained in para-15(A) to 15(V) are also stated to be the grounds on which the Election Petition has been filed. Relying on the observations in H.D. Revanna’s case (referred to in para-8 of this order) it is argued that the preliminary objection raised by R-1 is liable to be rejected inasmuch as the reliefs prayed for by the Election Petitioner can be granted if the averments made in paras 15(A) to 15(V) are proved to be true. Relying on the observations in H.D. Revanna’s case (referred to in para-8 of this order) it is argued that the preliminary objection raised by R-1 is liable to be rejected inasmuch as the reliefs prayed for by the Election Petitioner can be granted if the averments made in paras 15(A) to 15(V) are proved to be true. Citing the observation in D. Ramchandran’s case (supra) it is further submitted that for the purpose of consideration on a preliminary objection, the averments in the petition should be assumed to be true and the Court has to find out whether those averments disclose a cause of action or a triable issue as such. But in a recent decision in C.P. John’s case (supra) it is observed that unless and until the Election Petitioner comes forward with a definite plea of his case that the allegations of corrupt practice is supported by legally acceptable material evidence without an iota of doubt to such allegation, the Election Petition cannot be entertained and will have to be rejected at the threshold. Examined by the standard set forth in C.P. John’s case (supra), the present Election Petition for the reasons already cited cannot withstand the test. 22.Learned counsel for Election Petitioner, however, submits that the grounds taken in the petition are not exclusively on corrupt practice and, therefore, the standard set forth in C.P. John’s case applicable to allegation of corrupt practice cannot be applied to this case. A total reading of the grounds narrated in para-15(A) to 15(V) makes it quite evident that without the aid of the plea of corrupt practice presumed to have been practised by the polling officials with the consent of R-1, the grounds so narrated cannot be construed as valid grounds for declaring the election to be void. As already stated, there is no specific averment as to non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or any Rules or orders made thereunder and that merely on the basis of the discrepancies in the figures appearing in different forms and/or the omission to fill-up some columns of the forms cannot themselves be construed as improper acceptance or improper reception of any vote materially affecting the result of the election in so far as the returned candidate is concerned. Therefore, the grounds taken in the petition are all based on alleged corrupt practice. Therefore, the grounds taken in the petition are all based on alleged corrupt practice. Since the entire case of the Election Petitioner rests on the ground of corrupt practice, the Election Petition, in the absence of material facts as well as full particulars of such corrupt practice, is liable to be rejected at the threshold. 23.In course of argument learned counsel for R-1 has raised another technical ground on alleged non-filing of affidavit in Form 25 and/or defective affidavit. It is not correct to say that the Election petitioner has not filed affidavit in Form 25. Such an affidavit has been filed separately on the date following the presentation of the Election Petition. But a copy of that affidavit has not been served on R-1. The copy that has been served is a copy of the affidavit which was filed along with the Election Petition without being sworn before any Notary or any other authority before whom it ought should have been solemnly affirmed. Therefore, the learned counsel for R-1 submits that a true copy of a duly affirmed affidavit in Form 25 having not been served on R-1 there is no strict compliance to the mandatory requirement of law and, therefore, the Election Petition is liable to be rejected. But it is well settled that any minor defects in respect of such affidavit is curable and if there is substantial compliance to proviso to Section 83(1) of the Act, the Election Petition cannot be rejected (G.M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar : (2013) 4 SCC 776 . The defect found in the case at hand can be cured by way of delivery of a true copy of the duly affirmed affidavit. 24.In view of the discussion made above, the Misc. Case is allowed. The Election Petition having failed to disclose a cause of action stands rejected. Petition rejected.