ORDER : 1. The petitioner, who is the respondent No.1 in E.P.No.15 of 2024, filed this petition under Rule-11 of Order-VII read with Section 151 of CPC to reject the Election Petition. 2. Heard Sri J.Ramchander Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/respondent No.1 and Sri Golla Seshadri, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner. The contentions of the Petitioner/Respondent No.1 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 filed Election Petition to declare the election of the petitioner from Assembly of No.33-Siddipet Assembly Constituency, Siddipet District, State of Telangana held on 03.12.2023 as illegal, null and void and to call for the records. He submits that the petitioner herein was elected as Member of Legislative Assembly from Siddipet Assembly Constituency for seven times and served as Minister in several portfolios. The nomination of the petitioner was thoroughly checked, scrutinized by the Officer and upon due verification, his nomination was accepted. The elections were conducted in a free and fair manner and the petitioner won the election with the majority of 83,025 votes and the respondent No.1/Election Petitoiner got total votes of 16,610 and the election petition is filed with a malafide intention to upset the election results based on mere bald allegations that the information disclosed in Form 26 of the nomination by the petitioner was inaccurate. He submits that none of allegations made in the election petition are supported by either primary documents or reliable source of information and as per Section 83(1)(b) of Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short ‘the Act 1951’), the allegation of corrupt practice has to be supported by all the documents and material facts with date and time. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has given all the detailed information and particulars with regard to criminal cases pending against him and also the cases in which he was punished. The petitioner has mentioned all the details pertaining to the assets i.e, movable and immovable properties in his election affidavit and the respondent No.1 has made bald allegations without any primary documents or reliable source of information. The petitioner has mentioned all the details pertaining to the assets i.e, movable and immovable properties in his election affidavit and the respondent No.1 has made bald allegations without any primary documents or reliable source of information. He submits that the allegations in the election petition are not material facts but are facts based speculation and do not disclose any triable issue and the election petition can be initiated and entertained only when there is proper ground of contention which can be considered. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per Section 77 of the Act, 1951, the petitioner has maintained separate account for the election expenditure and the same was submitted to the District Election Officer under Section 78 of the Act, 1951. He submits that the respondent No.1 without filing any primary documents or reliable source of information to support his allegation has made bald and vague allegations with regard to the expenditure and as such, the election petition is liable to be rejected. 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the election petition lacks concise statement of material facts as contemplated under Section 83(a) of the Act, 1951 and lacks full particulars of the alleged corrupt practice as contemplated under Section 83(b) of the Act, 1951. He further submits that none of the allegations with regard to suppression of criminal cases pending against the petitioner and suppression of properties would fall within the definition of corrupt practice of undue influence as envisaged under Section 123(2) of the Act, 1951 and neither of the statements made in the various paragraphs of the election petition to be a concise statement of material facts nor material particulars to give rise to a cause of action with triable issues on falsity of nomination papers, improper acceptance of nomination paper and commission of corrupt practice. 7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner has made allegation that the petitioner has called his associates at 4.05 PM on 30.11.2023 and informed them to increase the percentage of polling i.e. 45% and instructed them to increase the percentage and further alleged that, on instruction of the petitioner, his associates interfered in the polling process and increased polling percentage up to 85% within one hour and thereby succeeded in the election by malpractice. The said allegations are vague, baseless and lack of material facts and the said vague averments made in the Election Petition cannot be taken into account. Further the respondent No.1 also failed to state the source of information and authenticity of the evidence as required under the Act, 1951, as such the same cannot be admissible as evidence to conduct trial in the Election Petition. 8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the Respondent No.1/Election Petitioner has also made allegation stating that in the election process between 4.00 p.m and 5.00 P.M no original voters have participated in the Booth Nos.167, 170, 171, 114, 119, 145, 113, 107, 130, 129, 139, 84, 87, 69, 91, 101, 106, 116, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 140, 156, 159, 166, 212 and 266 and there were malpractices in the election process. The said allegations are bald and vague without stating the material facts in support thereof as required and to be stated under Section 83 (1) (a) of the Act and the said Section mandates an Election Petition shall contain concise statement of all material facts on which the petitioner relies. The respondent No.1 failed to state material facts in the election petition as such the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that as the case would be covered by clause (a) of Rule-11 of Order-VII of Code of Civil Procedure and the Election Petition is liable to be dismissed right at the threshold as the respondent No.1 failed to state single material fact which lead to cause of action for filing election petition and as such the election petition is summarily dismissed on omission of single material facts leading to an incomplete cause of action and requested to reject the Election Petition as the pleadings are not specific and precise and the allegations do not set out grounds as contemplated under Section 100 of the Act, 1951. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/Respondent No.1 in support of his contentions, placed reliance on the following Judgments: 1. Kanimozhi Karunanidhi Vs. A. Santhana Kumar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 573 2. Hari Shanker Jain Vs. Sonia Gandhi, (2001) 8 SCC 233 3. Karim Uddin Barbhuiya Vs. Aminus Haque Laskar, 2024 SCC Online SC 509 The contentions of the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner. 11. Kanimozhi Karunanidhi Vs. A. Santhana Kumar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 573 2. Hari Shanker Jain Vs. Sonia Gandhi, (2001) 8 SCC 233 3. Karim Uddin Barbhuiya Vs. Aminus Haque Laskar, 2024 SCC Online SC 509 The contentions of the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner. 11. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner, based on the counter submits that the respondent No.1 is one of the contested candidates of 33-Siddipet Assembly Constituency in the general elections held on 30.11.2023 and the petitioner was also contested on behalf of Bharatha Rasthra Samithi Party and in the election process and also counting process, there were several malpractices occurred. Though the respondent No.1 brought all the illegal and malpractices made by the elected candidate to the notice of the Returning Officer, they did not take steps to enquire into the matter. He submits that this application is not maintainable as it is only filed to avoid trial process in the election petition and the respondent No.1 has filed all the relevant documents with regard to the malpractices occurred in the elections whichare required to be decided after trial and at this stage, this application is not maintainable. He further submits that the representation filed by the respondent No.1 dated 30.09.2024 to the Election Commission of India and other officials to recount the votes in 33-Siddipet Assembly Constituency is pending consideration. He submits that the present application is filed to avoid the trial process in the election petition and also to avoid recounting process and the same is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 12. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner has relied on the following Judgments:- 1. K. Babu Vs. M. Swaraj, (2024) 4 SCC 299 2. Kimneo Haokip Hangshing Vs. Kenn Raikhan, (2024) SCC Online SC 2548 CONSIDERATION & FINDINGS 13. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner filed the instant Election Petition questioning the election of the petitioner/respondent No.1 mainly on the following grounds: (i) that the nomination of the petitioner/respondent No.1 was improperly accepted by the Returning Officer, as the Form-26 affidavit was submitted without disclosing the relevant material facts as required under Law for the purpose of Section 33-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951. (ii) The petitioner/respondent No.1 had resorted to the corrupt practices of undue influence by suppressing the criminal antecedents which were required to be placed on record under Law for the purpose of Section 33-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951, and (iii) The petitioner/respondent No.1 deliberately having knowledge about his landed properties, he shown the agricultural land as Non-agricultural land. 14. This Court perused the records with regard to the nomination of the petitioner/respondent No.1 filed along with the Election Petition. A perusal of the pleadings of the Election Petition, nowhere it is stated that the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner made any objection before the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny of the nomination of the petitioner/Respondent No.1 by the Returning Officer. The respondent No.1/Election Petitioner, without filing any objection for acceptance of nomination of the petitioner/respondent No.1 merely stating that the nomination of the petitioner/respondent No.1 was improperly accepted by the Returning Officer. Moreover, the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner has not made any complaint to the election authorities with regard to improper acceptance of the nomination of the petitioner/respondent No.1. 15. The other contention of the Respondent No.1/Election Petitioner is that, the petitioner/respondent No.1 has resorted to corrupt practices of undue influence by suppressing the criminal antecedents which were required to be placed on record under Law for the purpose of Section 33-A of the Act, 1951. In this regard, this Court perused the affidavit filed by the petitioner/respondent No.1 in Form No.26, wherein the petitioner/respondent No.1 disclosed the particulars of the pending criminal cases against him and also cases of convictions. The respondent No.1/Election Petitioner has not given any particulars with regard to which cases were not disclosed by the petitioner/respondent No.1 in the affidavit submitted by him in Form No.26. The Election petitioner merely stating that the petitioner/respondent No.1 suppressed the criminal cases/FIRs pending against him and the Election Petitioner has also not given any particulars about the charge sheets filed against the petitioner/respondent No.1. The Election Petition has to be concise and have to contain all the particulars about the criminal cases which were suppressed by the petitioner/Respondent No.1 in the affidavit filed in Form No.26. In the instant case, the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner has failed to file any particulars about criminal cases, FIRs or charge sheets, which were suppressed by the petitioner/respondent No.1 in his affidavit. 16. In the instant case, the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner has failed to file any particulars about criminal cases, FIRs or charge sheets, which were suppressed by the petitioner/respondent No.1 in his affidavit. 16. Another contention of the Election Petitioner is that, the petitioner/respondent No.1 deliberately having knowledge about his landed properties, he has shown the agricultural land as non-agricultural land pertaining to Mittapalli Revenue Village of Siddipet Urban Mandal. 17. This Court perused the documents filed by the petitioner/respondent No.1 at Page No.129 of the Election Petition i.e. Photo Copy of online Dharani Portal without any attestation of competent authority, which shows that the petitioner/respondent No.1 is having agricultural lands in Sy.No.1037, situated at Mittapalli Revenue Village of Siddipet Urban Mandal, but the petitioner/Respondent No.1 stated in Form-26 Affidavit that he purchased an extent of 1434 Sq.Yards and 520 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.1037 situated at Mittapalli Village of Siddipet Mandal through registered document dated 15.10.2024 and 21.08.2024 respectively. A perusal of the registered documents Nos.7078 of 2014 dated 15.10.2014 and 5561 of 2014 dated 21.08.2014 shows that the petitioner/respondent No.1 purchased the property on square yard basis and nowhere it is mentioned that it is agricultural land. The respondent No.1/Election Petitioner basing on the Online Dharani portal status, stating that the petitioner/respondent No.1 shown the agricultural land as non-agricultural land. The respondent No.1/Election Petitioner has failed to file any authenticated document issued by the Revenue authorities showing that the petitioner/respondent No.1 has shown particular property as non-agriculture land though it is a agricultural land.In view of the same, the contention of the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner that the petitioner/respondent No.1 deliberately having knowledge about his landed property, he shown the agricultural land as non-agricultural land cannot be accepted. 18. The contention of the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner is that the petitioner/respondent No.1 failed to submit proper records for expenditure as the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner has obtained all particulars through Video recording and also extract copy of the expenditure submitted by the petitioner/respondent No.1 and observers/MCC, NCC, VST and TST Teams were also misguided and filed Pen Drives containing Video Recordings in Annexure-VI. The respondent No.1/Election Petitioner has not filed any Statement of Account of expenditure submitted by the petitioner/respondent No.1. The respondent No.1/Election Petitioner has not filed any Statement of Account of expenditure submitted by the petitioner/respondent No.1. There is no mention in the Election Petition about what was the actual expenditure incurred by the petitioner/respondent No.1 during the election period and what was the statement submitted by the petitioner/respondent No.1 to the Election authorities and how the same was accepted by the Election authorities.The respondent No.1/Election Petitioner has not filed any supporting documents and the said contentions are very vague. 19. The respondent No.1/Election Petitioner filed a Pen Drive pertaining to some public meetings conducted by the petitioner/respondent No.1. In the Election Petition this Court cannot decide the expenditure incurred by the petitioner/respondent No.1 during the election period merely basing on the averments in the Election Petition and Video footage of public meetings. 20. The other allegation of the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner is that, on the polling day i.e. on 30.11.2023 at 4.05 p.m. the petitioner/respondent No.1 called his followers and instructed them to increase the polling percentage and within one hour the polling percentage increased from 45% to 85% in particular polling booths and filed one Pen Drive of Audio recording of the WhatsApp in Annexure-VI. But the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner failed to give both-wise and hour-wise particulars of the polling percentage and there is no mentioning about any complaint was made to the concerned authorities immediately after completion of the election and no copy of complaint is filed along with the Election Petition. 21. The respondent No.1/Election Petitioner filed counter in the instant Interlocutory Application stating that he made representation to the Election Commission of India and others on 30.09.2024 for recounting of votes. In fact, the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner filed the instant Election Petition on 10.01.2024 and it clearly shows that, as an afterthought, the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner made representation on 30.09.2024 to the Election Commission of India and other officials for recounting of the votes in Siddipet Assembly Constituency. Therefore, this Court cannot take into consideration of the said representation for disposal of the instant Interlocutory Application. Moreover, the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner has not filed the said representation before this Court. 22. The Judgments relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner/respondent No.1 squarely apply to the facts of the Instant Interlocutory Application and the same are extracted as under: 23. In Kanimozhi Karunanidi Vs. Moreover, the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner has not filed the said representation before this Court. 22. The Judgments relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner/respondent No.1 squarely apply to the facts of the Instant Interlocutory Application and the same are extracted as under: 23. In Kanimozhi Karunanidi Vs. A. Santhana Kumar (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, held as follows: “28. The legal position enunciated in afore-stated cases may be summed up as under:- i. Section 83(1)(a) of RP Act, 1951 mandates that an Election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies. If material facts are not stated in an Election petition, the same is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone, as the case would be covered by Clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code. ii. The material facts must be such facts as would afford a basis for the allegations made in the petition and would constitute the cause of action, that is every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff/petitioner to prove, if traversed in order to support his right to the judgment of court. Omission of a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action and the statement of plaint would become bad. iii. Material facts mean the entire bundle of facts which would constitute a complete cause of action. Material facts would include positive statement of facts as also positive averment of a negative fact, if necessary. iv. In order to get an election declared as void under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act, the Election petitioner must aver that on account of non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of the Act or any rules or orders made under the Act, the result of the election, in so far as it concerned the returned candidate, was materially affected. v. The Election petition is a serious matter and it cannot be treated lightly or in a fanciful manner nor is it given to a person who uses it as a handle for vexatious purpose. vi. v. The Election petition is a serious matter and it cannot be treated lightly or in a fanciful manner nor is it given to a person who uses it as a handle for vexatious purpose. vi. An Election petition can be summarily dismissed on the omission of a single material fact leading to an incomplete cause of action, or omission to contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies for establishing a cause of action, in exercise of the powers under Clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC read with the mandatory requirements enjoined by Section 83 of the RP Act. xxxx 33. A elaborately discussed earlier, Section 83(1)(a) of RP Act mandates that an Election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts on which petitioner relies, and which facts constitute a cause of action. Such facts would include positive statement of facts as also positive averment of negative fact. Omission of a singular fact would lead to incomplete cause of action. So far as the present petition is concerned, there is no averment made as to how there was non-compliance with provisions of the Constitution or of RP Act or of the Rules or Order made thereunder and as to how such non- compliance had materially affected the result of the election, so as to attract the ground under Section100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act, for declaring the election to be void. The omission to state such vital and basic facts has rendered the petition liable to be dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11(a) CPC read with Section 83(i)(a) of the RP Act, 1951”. 24. In Harishankar Jain Vs. Sonia Gandhi (supra ), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that : “33. Without further burdening this judgment by dealing with each and every other averment made in the two election petitions, it would suffice to say that we have carefully read each of the two election petitions and heard each of the two election-petitioners (appellants) in very many details specially on the aspect of the election petitions suffering from the vice of not satisfying the mandatory requirement of pleading material facts as required by Section 82(1)(a) of RPA 1951 and we are satisfied that the two election petitions do not satisfy the requirement statutorily enacted and judicially explained in umpteen number of decisions. The petitions are hopelessly vague and completely bald in the allegations made, most of which could not possibly be within the personal knowledge of the petitioners but still verified as true to their knowledge, without indicating the source. Such pleadings cannot amount to disclosing any cause of action and are required to be rejected/dismissed under Order VII Rule11 CPC. 34. …… ….. ….. However, in spite of answering these questions in favour of the appellants yet the election petitions filed by them cannot be directed to be heard and tried on merits as the bald and vague averments made in the election petitions do not satisfy the requirement of pleading material facts within the meaning of Section 82(1)(a) of RPA 1951 read with the requirements of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The decision of the High Court dismissing the two election petitions at the preliminary stage, is sustained though for reasons somewhat different from those assigned by the High Court. The appeals are dismissed but without any order as to the costs”. 25. In Karim Uddin Barbhuiya Vs. Aminul Haque Laskar and others (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that : “ 23. As transpiring from the Election Petition, the respondent no. 1 himself had not raised any objection in writing against the nomination filed by the Appellant, at the time of scrutiny made by the Returning Officer under Section 36 of the Act. According to him, he had raised oral objection with regard to the education qualification stated by the Appellant in the Affidavit in Form-26. If he could make oral objection, he could as well, have made objection in writing against the acceptance of nomination of the Appellant, and in that case the Returning Officer would have decided his objection under sub-section (2) of Section 36, after holding a summary inquiry. Even if it is accepted that he had raised an oral objection with regard to the educational qualification of the Appellant before the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny, the respondent No. 1 has failed to make averment in the Election Petition as to how Appellant’s nomination was liable to be rejected by the Returning Officer on the grounds mentioned in Section 36(2) of the Act, so as to make his case fall under clause (d)(i) of Section 100(1) that there was improper acceptance of the nomination of the Appellant. The non-mentioning of the particulars as to how such improper acceptance of nomination had materially affected the result of the election, is apparent on the face of the Election Petition. 24. As stated earlier, in Election Petition, the pleadings have to be precise, specific and unambiguous. If the allegations contained in Election Petition do not set out grounds as contemplated in Section 100 and do not conform to the requirement of Section 81 and 83 of the Act, the Election Petition is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC. An omission of a single material fact leading to an incomplete cause of action or omission to contain a concise statement of material facts on which the Election petitioner relies for establishing a cause of action, would entail rejection of Election Petition under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 83 and 87 of the RP Act”. 26. The Judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner in K. Babu Vs. M. Swaraj (supra) not apply to the facts of the instant Interlocutory application as the facts are different. 27. Another Judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner in Kimneo Haokip Hangshing Vs. Kenn Raikhan (supra) also not apply to the facts of the instant Interlocutory application as the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner failed to file any document in support of their contention. 28. The Election Petition has to be precise, specific and unambiguous as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karim Uddin Barbhuiya Vs. Aminul Haque Laskar , 2024 SCC Online SC 509 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held as under: “24. As stated earlier, in Election Petition, the pleadings have to be precise, specific and unambiguous. If the allegations contained in Election Petition do not set out grounds as contemplated in Section 100 and do not conform to the requirement of Section 81 and 83 of the Act, the Election Petition is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC. An omission of a single material fact leading to an incomplete cause of action or omission to contain a concise statement of material facts on which the Election petitioner relies for establishing a cause of action, would entail rejection of Election Petition under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 83 and 87 of the RP Act” 29. An omission of a single material fact leading to an incomplete cause of action or omission to contain a concise statement of material facts on which the Election petitioner relies for establishing a cause of action, would entail rejection of Election Petition under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 83 and 87 of the RP Act” 29. A bare reading of the Election Petition and documents filed along with the Election Petition, it emerges that the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner has made only bald and vague allegations in the Election Petition without stating the material facts in support thereof as required to be stated under Sections 83 (1) (a) and 100 of the Act, 1951. 30. The relevant provisions for the election petition are Section 83 and Section 100(1)(d) of the Act, 1951 which reads as under: 83. Contents of petition.— (1) An election petition— (a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies; (b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, 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; (c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the verification of pleadings: [Provided 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. (2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition. 100. Grounds for declaring election to be void.— (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if [the High court] is of opinion— (a)… (b)… (c)….. (2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition. 100. Grounds for declaring election to be void.— (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if [the High court] is of opinion— (a)… (b)… (c)….. (d) 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 [by an agent other than his election agent], or (iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void, or (iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act, [the High Court] shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void. 31. The instant Election Petition does not complies with Section 83 and 100 (1) (d) of the Act, 1951. There is no triable issue with regard to the alleged malpractices basing on the averments and documents filed by the Election Petitioner in the instant case. In view of the same, the petition filed by the petitioner/respondent No.1 under Rule-11 of Order-VII of CPC is maintainable. 32. In view of the above finding, the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner has not set out the grounds as contemplated in Section 100 and the requirement of Section 81 and 83 of the Act, 1951 the instant Interlocutory Petition filed by the petitioner/respondent No.1 is liable to be allowed and the Election Petition filed by the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner is liable to be rejected under Rule-11 of Order-VII of CPC. 33. Accordingly, the I.A.No.4 of 2024 in E.P.No.15 of 2024 is allowed. Consequently, the Election Petition No.15 of 2024 filed by the respondent No.1/Election Petition is hereby rejected. No order as to costs.