# Anita Devi Chaurasiya v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 409
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-17
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 22128 of 2023
- **Bench:** Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anita-devi-chaurasiya-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51431
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-Uttar Pradesh Panchyat Raj
Act,1947-Section 12-C-Election disputesThe petitioner challenged the election of
the
gram
pradhan
on
grounds
of
irregularities, including double voting and
alleged undue influence by the returned
candidate's husband-The court held that
the
elections
petition
requires
strict
compliance with statutory requirements,
including precise pleadings and material
facts, as per section 12-C of the 1947 Act
and
Rule
3
of
the
U.P.
Panchayat
Raj(Settlement
of
Election
Disputes)Rules,1994-General allegations or
lack of specific evidence on material facts,
such as identifying voters who committed
double voting and its impact on election
results, cannot sustain a petition-Procedural
objections, including claims about
the
candidates's eligibility or residency, must be
raised before the appropriate authority at
the relevant time and not introduced later in
appellate or writ proceedings.(Para 1 to 34)

The writ petition is dismissed. .( E-6)

List of cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,852 of 44,485. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39852 for what follows._

2 All. Anita Devi Chaurasiya Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
409
diplomatic or consular agents of the
country in which the document has to be
produced certify the authenticity of the
signature the capacity in which the person
signing the document has acted and, where
appropriate, the identity of the seal or stamp
which it bears.

Article 3

The only formality that may be
required in order to certify the authenticity of
the signature, the capacity in which the person
signing the document has acted and, where
appropriate, the identity of the seal or stamp
which it bears, is the addition of the certificate
described in Article 4, issued by the competent
authority of the State from which the document
emanates.

......................

From this it follows that the terms of
the Convention are part of the law of Namibia
and legally bind Namibia against other
Contracting States."

46. Hence, it is clear that the petitioner
has placed the documents which goes to show
that, her grandparents had immigrate from India
to Guyana on 10th October, 1882 and the
documents given by her are sufficient enough to
prove the same. The Citizenship Act, 1955 was
amended and Section 7A was added on
28.6.2005. This amendment was clearly carried
out to give benefits to the foreign citizens
(whose forefathers/mothers have been native of
Indian origin) for travelling and staying in India,
so Section 7A was added in the Citizenship Act,
1955, and Overseas Citizen of India Cards were
to be issued, to such citizens, whose forefathers
were Indians.

47. The request of respondents to provide
Nativity Certificate is, nowhere, provided in the
Citizenship Act or the Rules. We understand the
respondents can ask for documents to prove
ancestry, which has been provided by the
petitioner in this case. Further, the respondents
cannot compel the petitioner to get a Nativity
Certificate from the office of the District
Magistrate, which admittedly as per their own
objection, they have not maintained the same
since 1900.

48. The Government of India has been
signatory of the Hague Convention, and
accordingly, the Ministry of External Affairs
had issued Office Memorandum on 18.11.2020
treating the 'Apostille' document as a legal
document. Here, when the petitioner had given
'Apostille' document showing her ancestry, it is
not open for respondent nos.1 to 3 to disbelieve
the same and not follow the Treaty, even though
they themselves had signed.

49. The petitioner has clearly made out a
case that her great grandparents migrated to
Guyana in October, 1882, hence, she is entitled
for the OCI Card. Accordingly, we direct
respondent nos.1 to 3 to process the OCI Card
of the petitioner in accordance with Section 7A
of the Citizenship Act, 1955. We further direct
conversion of VISA of the petitioner, so that she
is eligible for the OCI Card.

50. Accordingly, the writ petition
stands allowed.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 409
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.01.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Writ C No. 22128 of 2023

Anita Devi Chaurasiya ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, Ashish
Kumar Singh
410 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ashutosh Pandey, Sri Rahul
Sahai

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-Uttar Pradesh Panchyat Raj
Act,1947-Section 12-C-Election disputesThe petitioner challenged the election of
the
gram
pradhan
on
grounds
of
irregularities, including double voting and
alleged undue influence by the returned
candidate's husband-The court held that
the
elections
petition
requires
strict
compliance with statutory requirements,
including precise pleadings and material
facts, as per section 12-C of the 1947 Act
and
Rule
3
of
the
U.P.
Panchayat
Raj(Settlement
of
Election
Disputes)Rules,1994-General allegations or
lack of specific evidence on material facts,
such as identifying voters who committed
double voting and its impact on election
results, cannot sustain a petition-Procedural
objections, including claims about
the
candidates's eligibility or residency, must be
raised before the appropriate authority at
the relevant time and not introduced later in
appellate or writ proceedings.(Para 1 to 34)

The writ petition is dismissed. .( E-6)

List of cases cited:

1. Rupadhar Pujari Vs Gangadhar Bhatra(2004)
7 SCC 654

2. K.Venkatachalam Vs A. Swamickan &
anr.(1999) 4 SCC 526

3. Smt. Archana Vs St. Election Commission &
ors.. (2018)7 ADJ 703

4. Mudi Vs St. Election Commission(2000)4 AWC
3374

5. Ram Bhual Vs Ambika Singh (2005) AIR SC
4233

6. Arikala Narasa Reddy Vs Venkata Ram Reddy
Reddygari & anr.. (2014) 5 SCC 312
7. Ram Adhar Singh Vs The Distt Judge
Ghazipur & ors.. (1985) AWC 246

8. Ram Sewak Yadav Vs Hussion Kamil Kidwai &
ors.. AIR (1964) SC 1249

9.
L.R.Shivaramagowda
&
ors..
Vs
T.M.
Chandrashekar (Dead) by Lrs. & ors..(1999) 1
SCC 666

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan
Agarwal, J.)

1. The petitioner (Election Petitioner)
before this Court had contested the election
for the post of Gram Pradhan of Gram
Panchayat
Bhangura,
Vikas
Khand
Kudaraha in the year 2021. The result was
declared on 02.05.2021 and respondent
No.4, the Returned Candidate, won the
election and secured 349 votes while
Election Petitioner got 335 votes.

2. The election petition was filed by
the
petitioner
before
Sub-Divisional
Officer, Tehsil Sadar, District Basti under
Section 12-C of Uttat Pradesh Panchayat
Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as
"Act of 1947") on the ground that
husband
of
Returned
Candidate
Jaggiram was Booth Level Officer
(hereinafter
called
as
"BLO")
appointed
in
the
same
Village
Panchayat and had influenced the
election by inducting 49 new voters of
another village and succeeded in getting
the
result
in
favour
of
Returned
Candidate.

3. An allegation was made in the
election petition that 49 voters, who were
included in the voter list of Village
Panchayat in which elections were held, the
names of these 49 voters also found place
in 6 Village Panchayats and the votes
counted
in
favour
of
the
Returned
2 All. Anita Devi Chaurasiya Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
411
Candidate led to her victory on the ground
of double voting. In paras 8 to 14 of the
election petition, descriptions of voters
whose names appear in the electoral roll of
Gram Panchayat Bhangura as well as other
Gram Panchayats namely Vihara, Bhedwa,
Sonbarsa, Turkauliya, Devadeeha, and
Paun have been given. Further ground has
been
taken
that
Section
62(3)
of
Representation
of
People Act,
1951
(hereinafter called as "Act of 1951)
provides that each person shall be entitled
to vote only once and no person shall vote
in more than one constituency of the same
class, and if he does so, his votes shall be
void in all such constituencies. Section 9(6)
of Act of 1947 secures the spirit of 'one
elector one vote'. Para 15 of the election
petition takes note of 11 affidavits filed by
residents of the six Gram Panchayats
confirming that the voters, mentioned in
paras 9 to 14 of election petition, had not
only voted in Gram Panchayat Bhangura
but
also
in
their
respective
Gram
Panchayats.

4. The aforesaid election petition was
contested by the Returned Candidate by
filing a written statements. It was alleged
that after publication of electoral role,
objections were invited, but, the Election
Petitioner did not file any objection to the
electoral role. Further, there was no
documentary evidence on record to prove
that 49 voters, whose names appear in the
voter list of Gram Panchayat Bhangura, had
also voted in the other Gram Panchayat.

5. The Prescribed Authority, on the
basis of pleadings of the parties and the
evidence led therein, vide order dated
27.12.2022, proceeded to hold the election
null and void as names of 49 persons of six
different Gram Panchayats appeared in the
electoral role of Gram Panchayat Bhangura
and 11 persons have given their affidavits
to the effect that they have seen those
persons casting their vote in their Gram
Panchayat also, and declared the post of
Pradhan vacant.

6. Aggrieved by the order of
Prescribed
Authority,
the
Returned
Candidate preferred Civil Revision No.1 of
2023 before the District Judge, Basti. The
Revision was allowed vide order impugned
dated
24.05.2023
and
the
order
of
Prescribed Authority dated 27.12.2022 was
set aside hence the present writ petition.

7. Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned
counsel for Election Petitioner submitted
that the Revisional Court had exceeded its
jurisdiction in allowing the revision and the
order passed de hors the rules and the
process established by law. He contended
that the Returned Candidate Anju Kumari
was married to Jaggiram on 24.03.2021,
and prior to that she was residing in another
village but her name had been entered in
the voter list of Village Bhangura, which
had already been finalized and the elections
were held in April, 2021. He next
contended that the husband of Returned
Candidate was appointed as BLO in the
same
Village
Panchayat,
who
had
influenced the election and thus the
election needs to be set aside. According to
him, 49 members of six different Village
Panchayats have been included in the
electoral roll of Village Bhangura and the
affidavits filed by 11 persons stating that
they have voted both in their respective
Village Panchayats and Village Bhangura
clearly spells out the ground for declaring
the election of the Returned Candidate
void. He has placed reliance upon decision
of Apex Court rendered in Rupadhar
Pujari vs. Gangadhar Bhatra (2004) 7
412 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
SCC 654 wherein the Apex Court had held
that the procedural laws relating to
panchayat elections and the election
petitioner
cannot
be
allowed
to
be
interpreted with too much rigidity and by
indulging in hair-splitting. Reliance has
also been placed upon the decision of Apex
Court
in
K.Venkatachalam
vs.
A.
Swamickan & Anr. (1999) 4 SCC 526.

8. Counsel submitted that the Court
exercising power under Article 226 of the
Constitution can also deal with the issues
which has not been raised in the election
petition, which goes to the root of the
matter and the prayer made in the election
petition allows to be granted though the
pleadings are missing.

9. Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel
appearing for the Returned Candidate
submitted that the election petition filed by
election petitioner lacks basic pleadings
and only the fact to the extent that names of
49 members, whose names are there in the
electoral roll of Village Bhangura, also find
place
in
another
village
has
been
mentioned. According to him, there is no
pleading that these 49 voters had not only
cast vote in Village Bhangura but also in
the other Village Panchayat in which their
names have been entered. He submitted
that the alleged 49 voters were already
there in the previous voter list of 2005,
2010 and 2015. The Election Petitioner had
contested the election of member of Block
Development Council in the year 2015 and
was
elected
as
Block
Development
member, but, no objections were ever
raised by her with regard to voter list.

10. He next submitted that the
husband of Returned Candidate was
appointed as Rojgar Sewak in the year
2008 and was given oral instructions by the
superior authority in the year 2010 to
discharge duty of BLO. It is a Class IV post
and he cannot influence the election in any
manner. He next contended that the
Returned
Candidate
was
married
to
Jaggiram in the year 2020 and Gauna was
solemnized in March, 2021 and since her
marriage she became resident of the said
village and her name was entered in the
voter list. Reliance has been placed upon
decision of this Court in Smt. Archana vs.
State Election Commission & Ors. 2018
(7) ADJ 703 wherein electoral roll was
questioned after finalization of the election.
The Court held that no such objection can
be raised in regard to preparation of
electoral roll after the election had been
completed. Relevant para 18 of the
judgment are extracted hereasunder :

"Considering the matter in its
entirety and particularly with regard to the
facts of the present case with reference
to the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in the cases of Inderjit Barua
(supra), Lakshmi Charan Sen (supra)
and
Pampakavi
Rayappa
Belagali
(supra), the petitioner never having
raised
any
objection
against
the
preparation of the electoral roll in the
manner provided in the Rules, 1994 it is
not open for her now after the election
has already been completed and the
result declared to challenge the same on
the ground that the electoral roll had
not been correctly prepared and it
contained names of persons belonging
to other villages of persons who had
died."

11. Reliance has also been placed
upon decision of this Court in Mudi vs.
State Election Commission 2000(4) AWC
3374. Relevant para 8 of the judgment is
extracted hereasunder :
2 All. Anita Devi Chaurasiya Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
413

"In
view
of
the
aforesaid
provision, a challenge to the correctness of
electoral roll cannot be permitted to be
raised after the publication of the final
electoral roll. If a person feels that name of
a dead person or a person who is not
eligible to be included in the electoral roll
has been included in the electoral roll, his
remedy lies in filing an application at the
opportune time for correction of the entry.
Similarly, if the name of someone has not
been included in the electoral roll though
he is eligible for the said purpose, he ought
to make an application in that regard
within the prescribed period. The decision
of the Assistant Electoral Registration
Officer in these matters is subject to an
appeal and sub-rule (4) of Rule 21A
attaches finality to the order passed in
appeal. The provisions of the Act and the
Rules thus provide a complete safeguard
against any wrong inclusion or wrong
omission of name in the electoral roll. After
publication of the final roll, the same is
immune from any challenge at a subsequent
stage. Once the process of election has
begun, they can neither be challenged by
means of a writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution nor in an election
petition filed under Section 12C of the U. P.
Panchayat Raj Act which gives the
procedure for challenging the election of a
person as pradhan."

12. On the question of specific
pleading in the election petition, reliance
has been placed upon decision of Apex
Court rendered in Ram Bhual vs. Ambika
Singh AIR 2005 SC 4233, relevant para 8
whereof is extracted hereasunder :

"The decisions relied on by the
learned counsel in Mohd. Zahoor Ali Khan
v. Thakooranee Rutta Koer (1867) 11 Moo
IA 468 and Secy. of State for India in
Council v. Laxmibai (1922) 50 IA 49 : AIR
1923 PC 6 that the pleadings in mofussil
courts in our country are loosely drafted
and a liberal construction has always to be
given to such pleadings, cannot help the
appellant. Here is a case of no pleading at
all. How far the principles of those
decisions can be applied to a High Court
like the High Court of Allahabad, one of
the chartered High Courts of this country
and that too, more than 50 years after
independence, need not be answered in this
case. This Court in Badat & Co. v. East
India Trading Co. AIR 1964 SC 538 after
referring to Order 8 Rules 3 and 4 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, held that
this construction of pleadings would not
apply to the Original Side of the High
Court of Bombay. But in any election
petition, it is well settled by the decisions of
this Court, that pleadings are very
important and they, in fact, play a large
part in adjudications arising under the
Representation of the People Act, 1951. In
Sushil Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar (2003) 8
SCC 673 (SCC p. 695, para 75) this Court
stated, "The pleadings in an election
petition
must
likewise
be
construed
strictly." Therefore, the attempt of learned
counsel for the appellant to gloss over the
failure of the appellant to deny the relevant
and crucial allegations in the election
petition, cannot succeed. The fact is that
the pleadings as regards what transpired
before the Returning Officer at the time of
scrutiny of nominations remain un-rebutted
in the pleadings of the appellant. The
pleadings in the election petition also stand
supported by the oral evidence of PW 1 and
PW 2, in the light of the oral evidence of
the appellant as RW 1 in which not even an
attempt is made to deny the facts spoken to
by PW 1 and PW 2. It is clear from Section
36(4) of the Act that the Returning Officer
shall not reject any nomination paper on
414 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the ground of any defect which is not of a
substantial character. Section 33(4) of the
Act provides that on the presentation of a
nomination paper, the Returning Officer
has to satisfy himself that the names and
the electoral roll numbers of the candidate
and his proposer as entered in the
nomination paper are the same as those
entered in the electoral roll. The proviso
thereto clearly provides that no misnomer
or inaccurate description or clerical,
technical or printing error in regard to the
name of the candidate or his proposer or
any other person, or in regard to any place,
mentioned in the electoral roll or the
nomination
paper
and
no
clerical,
technical or printing error in regard to the
electoral roll numbers of any such person
in the electoral roll or the nomination
paper, shall affect the full operation of the
electoral roll or the nomination paper with
respect to such person or place and in a
case where there was an error in the
nomination paper
in regard to the
description, he shall direct that the same be
corrected and he could even overlook such
errors. It is in the context of the proviso to
Section 33(4), that the case set up by the
appellant, of Sita Ram drawing the
attention of the Returning Officer to the
defect being only an error in the serial
number and that Sant Lal, the ninth
proposer, was actually at Serial No. 352 on
the same page of the voters' list assumes
great significance. It is a minor defect
which obviously should have been got
corrected by the Returning Officer even
while
accepting
the
nomination
and
certainly he could not have rejected the
nomination on that ground in the light of
Section 36(4) of the Act. At the risk of
repetition, we may mention that there is no
case for the appellant that Sant Lal was not
the voter shown at Serial No. 352 in Part
91 of the voters' list."

13. Reliance has also been placed
upon decision of Apex Court in Arikala
Narasa Reddy vs. Venkata Ram Reddy
Reddygari & Anr. (2014) 5 SCC 312,
relevant para 15 whereof is extracted
hereasunder :

"This Court has consistently held
that the court cannot go beyond the
pleadings of the parties. The parties have
to take proper pleadings and establish by
adducing evidence that by a particular
irregularity/illegality, the result of the
election has been "materially affected".
There can be no dispute to the settled legal
proposition that "as a rule relief not
founded on the pleadings should not be
granted". Thus, a decision of the case
should not be based on grounds outside the
pleadings of the parties. In the absence of
pleadings, evidence if any, produced by the
parties, cannot be considered. It is also a
settled legal proposition that no party
should be permitted to travel beyond its
pleadings and parties are bound to take all
necessary and material facts in support of
the case set up by them. Pleadings ensure
that each side is fully alive to the questions
that are likely to be raised and they may
have an opportunity of placing the relevant
evidence
before
the
court
for
its
consideration. The issues arise only when a
material proposition of fact or law is
affirmed by one party and denied by the
other party. Therefore, it is neither
desirable nor permissible for a court to
frame an issue not arising on the pleadings.
The court cannot exercise discretion of
ordering re-counting of ballots just to
enable the election petitioner to indulge in
a roving inquiry with a view to fish
material for declaring the election to be
void. The order of re-counting can be
passed only if the petitioner sets out his
case with precision supported by averments
2 All. Anita Devi Chaurasiya Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
415
of material facts. (Vide Ram Sewak Yadav v.
Hussain Kamil Kidwai AIR 1964 SC 1249,
Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind (1976) 1 SCC 687 :
AIR 1975 SC 2117 and M. Chinnasamy v.
K.C. Palanisamy (2004) 6 SCC 341."

14. I have heard the respective
counsels for the parties and perused the
material on record.

15. The question, which has been
raised for consideration through this writ
petition is, as to whether in an election
petition filed under Section 12-C of Act of
1947, the rule of strict pleading would
apply or not and the facts not stated and
narrated in the election petition could be
taken into account by the Prescribed
Authority or by this Court exercising power
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India?

16. Before adverting to decide the
issue in hand, a cursory glance of Section
12-C(1) of Act of 1947, Rule 3 of U.P.
Panchayat Raj (Settlement of Election
Disputes) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter called as
"Rules of 1994") and Sections 80 and 83 of
Act of 1951 are necessary for better
understanding of the case which are
extracted hereasunder :

"12-C.
Application
for
questioning the elections - (1) The election
of a person as Pradhan or as member of a
Gram Panchayat including the election of a
person appointed as the Panch of the
Nyaya Panchayat under Section 43 shall
not be called in question except by an
application presented to such authority
within such time and in such manner as
may be prescribed on the ground that -

(a) the election has not been a
free election by reason that the corrupt
practice of bribery or undue influence has
extensively prevailed at the election, or

(b) that the result of the election
has been materially affected-

(i) by the improper acceptance or
rejection of any nomination or;

(ii) by gross failure to comply
with the provisions of this Act or the rules
framed thereunder."

"3. Election Petition.-(1) An
application under sub-section (1) of Section
12-C of the Act shall be presented before
the Sub-Divisional Officer, within whose
jurisdiction
the
concerned
Gram
Panchayat lies, within ninety days after the
day on which the result of the election
questioned is announced and shall specify
the ground or grounds on which the
election of the respondent is questioned and
contain a summary of the circumstances
alleged to justify the election being
questioned on such ground:

Provided that no such application
shall
be
entertained
unless
it
is
accompanied by a treasure challan to show
that the amount of rupees fifty has been
deposited in the Personal Ledger Account
of the Gram Panchayat concerned as
security.

(2) The person whose election is
questioned and where the petition claims
that the petitioner or any other candidates
shall be declared elected in place of such
person, every unsuccessful candidate shall
be made a respondent to the application.

(3) Every respondent may give
evidence to prove that any person in
respect of whom a claim is made that such
person be declared elected, should not be
declared so elected on the same ground or
ground on which his election could have
been questioned if he had been elected."

"80.
Election
petitions.-No
election shall be called in question except
by an election petition presented in
416 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accordance with the provisions of this
Part."

"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; and

(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."

17. Section 12-C(1) of Act of 1947
provides for the application for questioning
the election of a person as Pradhan or as
member of a Gram Panchayat including the
election of a person appointed as the Panch
of the Nyaya Panchayat. The election is not
to be questioned except on the ground
mentioned in Section 12-C(1)(a) & (b) of
Act of 1947.

18. Rule 3 of Rules of 1994 provides
that the election petition is to be presented
before the Sub-Division Officer, within
whose jurisdiction the concerned Gram
Panchayat lies, within ninety days after the
declaration of the result, specifying the
ground or grounds on which the election of
a Returned Candidate is questioned and
shall
contain
a
summary
of
the
circumstances alleged to justify the election
being questioned on such ground.

19. The Act of 1951 and the rules
framed thereunder provides for questioning
the election in regard to Parliamentary and
Assembly election. Section 80 of the Act of
1951 provides that no election shall be
questioned except by means of an election
petition presented in accordance with
provisions of Part VI while Section 83(1)
provides that an election petition should
contain concise statement of the material
facts on which the election petitioner relies.

20. Comparing the provisions of Act
of 1947 and the rules framed thereunder
and those of Act of 1951, it transpires that
they are almost identical to each other. The
matter came up for consideration before the
Full Bench of this Court in Ram Adhar
Singh vs. The District Judge, Ghazipur
& Ors. 1985 AWC 246. The Full Bench, in
para 18 of the judgment, has held as under :

"We are unable to accept the
submission made by the learned Counsel.
As already explained the Supreme Court
has,
in
cases
arising
under
the
Representation of the People Act, spelt out
the condition that all the courts dealing
with an election petition should not
exercise its discretion to permit inspection
of ballot papers unless the petition contains
an adequate statement of material facts on
which the Petitioner relies in support of his
case (viz. that the petition meets the
requirements of Section 83(1) of the
Representation of the People Act regarding
contents of an election petition) for the
reason that under the Act, it is a matter of
2 All. Anita Devi Chaurasiya Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
417
utmost importance to maintain the secrecy
of ballot which is sacrosanct and which
should not be lightly allowed to be violated
on vague and indefinite allegations. This
reason applies equally to an election held
under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act which
too cherishes secrecy of ballot to the same
extent. Viewed from this angle, it becomes
evident that the amplitude and purpose of
the requirement of Section 83(1)(a) of the
Representation of the People Act that the
election petition must contain a concise
statements of material facts on which the
Petitioner relies and that of Rule 24 of the
Rules framed under the U.P. Panchayat Raj
Act to the effect that an application under
Section 12-C(1) of the Act must specify the
grounds on which the election of the
Respondent is being questioned as also a
summary of circumstances alleged to justify
the election being questioned on such
grounds, is the same, viz. that the court or
the authority dealing with an election
petition under the respective enactments,
should not countenance or proceed to
investigate into any ground taken in the
election petition unless the ground as well
as the material in support of such ground
have been adequately disclosed in the
petition. Neither of the two enactments
countenances the court or the authority to
permit the election Petitioner to make or
indulge into making of a roving enquiry
with a view to fish out material for
declaring an election void; and it is this
weighty factor which impels the court or
the authority not to look into or permit
inspection of ballot papers unless the
foundation for the purpose has been
properly laid in the petition by specifying
the ground and the material or the
circumstances in support of such ground.
Viewed in this light, the provisions
contained in the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules
permitting the summary hearing of an
application under Section 12-C(1) of the
Act and authorising the Sub-Divisional
Officer to, instead of recording evidence in
full, merely maintain a memorandum
thereof, has no bearing on the question
regarding circumstances in which the ballot
papers can either be looked into or
permitted to be inspected in proceedings
under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat
Raj Act."

21. In Ram Sewak Yadav vs. Hussain
Kamil Kidwai & Ors. AIR 1964 Sc 1249,
the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex
Court had held that allegation made by
election petitioner against the Returned
Candidate must be clear and specific and
must be supported by adequate statement of
material facts. Further, the Court must be
prima facie satisfied on the materials
produced before the Court regarding the
truth of the allegation made on record.
Relevant paras 6 and 7 of the judgment are
extracted hereasunder :

"6. An election petition must
contain a concise statement of the material
facts on which the petitioner relies in
support of his case. If such material facts
are set out the Tribunal has undoubtedly
the
power
to
direct
discovery
and
inspection of documents with which a civil
court is invested under the Code of Civil
Procedure when trying a suit. But the
power which the civil court may exercise in
the trial of suits is confined to the narrow
limits of O. 11, Code of Civil Procedure.
Inspection of documents under O. 11, Code
of Civil Procedure may be ordered under
rule 15, of documents which are referred to
in the pleadings or particulars as disclosed
in the affidavit of documents of the other
party, and under rule 18(2) of other
documents in the possession or power of
the other party. The Returning Officer is
418 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
not a party to an election petition, and an
order for production of the ballot papers
cannot be made under O. 11 Code of Civil
Procedure. But the Election Tribunal is not
on that account without authority in respect
of the ballot papers. In a proper case where
the interests of justice demand it, the
Tribunal may call upon the Returning
Officer to produce the ballot papers and
may permit inspection by the parties before
it of the ballot papers. That power is
clearly implicit in Sections 100(1)(d)(iii),
101, 102 and rule 93 of the Conduct of
Election Rules, 1961. This power to order
inspection of the ballot papers which is
apart from O. 11 Code of Civil Procedure
may be exercised, subject to the statutory
restrictions about the secrecy of the ballot
paper prescribed by 94 and 128(1).

7. An order for inspection may
not be granted as a matter of course :
having regard to the insistence upon the
secrecy of the ballot papers, the Court
would be justified in granting an order for
inspection provided two conditions are
fulfilled :

(i) that the petition for setting
aside an election contains an adequate
statement of the material facts on which the
petitioner relies in support of his case; and

(ii) the Tribunal is prima facie
satisfied that in order to decide the dispute
and to do complete justice between parties
inspection of the ballot papers is necessary.

But an order for inspection of
ballot papers cannot be granted to support
vague pleas made in the petition not
supported by material facts or to fish out
evidence to support such pleas. The case of
the petitioner must be set out with precision
supported by averments of material facts.
To establish a case so pleaded an order for
inspection may undoubtedly, if the interests
of justice require, be granted. But a more
allegation that the petitioner suspects or
believes that there has been an improper
reception, refusal or rejection of votes will
not be sufficient to support an order for
inspection."

22. In Jyoti Basu and others vs.
Debi Ghosal and others AIR 1982 SC
983, the Apex Court while dealing with an
election dispute has held that 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, applies. It is
a special jurisdiction, and a special
jurisdiction has always to be exercised in
accordance with the statute creating it.
Relevant para 8 of the judgment is
extracted hereasunder :

"A right to elect, fundamental
though it is to democracy, is, anomalously
enough, neither a fundamental right nor a
Common Law Right. It is pure and simple,
a statutory right. So is the right to be
elected. So is the right to dispute an
election. Outside of 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 statutory creating it. Concepts familiar
to Common Law and Equity must remain
strangers to Election Law unless statutorily
embodied. A Court has no right to resort to
them on considerations of alleged policy
because policy in such matters as those,
relating to the trial of election disputes, is
2 All. Anita Devi Chaurasiya Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
419
what the statute lays down. 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 up to 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.
There can be no election to Parliament or
the State Legislature except as provided by
the Representation of the People Act 1951
and again, no such election may be
questioned except in the manner provided
by the Representation of the People Act. So
the Representation of the People Act has
been held to be a complete and self
contained code within which must be found
any rights claimed in relation to an election
or an election dispute. We are concerned
with an election dispute. The question is
who are parties to an election dispute and
who may be impleaded as parties to an
election petition. We have already referred
to the Scheme of the Act. We have noticed
the necessity to rid ourselves of notions
based on Common Law or Equity. We see
that we must seek an answer to the question
within the four corners of the statute. What
does the Act say ?"

23. In dealing with the question for
declaring an election to be void, the Apex
Court in L.R.Shivaramagowda & Ors. vs.
T.M. Chandrashekar (Dead) by Lrs. &
Ors. (1999) 1 SCC 666 has held that it is
absolutely necessary for the election
petitioner to plead that result of election
insofar as it concerned the returned
candidate had been materially affected by
the alleged non-compliance with the
provisions of the Act or of the Rules. The
Court further stressed the importance of
pleadings in an election petition and
pointed
out
the
difference
between
"material facts" and "material particulars".
Relevant paras 10 and 11 of the judgment
are extracted hereasunder :

"10. That apart, it is rightly
pointed out by the appellant's counsel that
in order to declare an election to be void
under Section 100(1)(d)(iv), it is absolutely
necessary for the election petitioner to
plead that the result of the election insofar
as it concerned the returned candidate had
been materially affected by the alleged
non-compliance with the provisions of the
Act or of the Rules. We have already
extracted para 39 of the election petition
which is the only relevant paragraph. One
will search in vain for an averment in that
paragraph that the appellant had spent for
the election an amount exceeding the
prescribed limit or that the result of the
election was materially affected by the
failure of the appellant to give true and
correct accounts of expenditure. In the
absence of either averment, it was not open
to the appellant to adduce evidence to that
effect. It cannot be denied that the two
matters referred to above are material facts
which ought to find a place in an election
petition if the election is sought to be set
aside on the basis of such facts.

11. This Court has repeatedly
stressed the importance of pleadings in an
election petition and pointed out the
difference between "material facts" and
"material particulars". While the failure to
plead material facts is fatal to the election
petition and no amendment of the pleading
could be allowed to introduce such
material
facts
after
the
time-limit
prescribed for filing the election petition,
the absence of material particulars can be
cured at a later stage by an appropriate
amendment. In Balwan Singh v. Lakshmi
420 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Narain AIR 1960 SC 770 the Constitution
Bench held that an election petition was not
liable to be dismissed in limine merely
because full particulars of corrupt practice
alleged were not set out. On the facts of the
case, the Court found that the alleged
corrupt practice of hiring a vehicle for the
conveyance of the voters to the polling
station was sufficiently set out in the
pleading. The Court pointed out that the
corrupt practice being hiring or procuring
of the vehicle for the conveyance of the
electors, if full particulars of conveying by
a vehicle of electors to or from any polling
stations were given, Section 83 was duly
complied with, even if the particulars of the
contract of hiring, as distinguished from
the fact of hiring were not given."

24. In the instant case, the election
petitioner
had
pleaded
before
the
Prescribed Authority in paras 9 to 14 that
49 members of six different villages were
also enrolled as voters in Village Bhangura.
The affidavits of 11 members corroborated
that they had seen many of the enrolled
voters to have voted in two villages, but,
there is no averment in the election petition
that
which
member
of
the
Village
Panchayat voted in two villages which had
materially affected the result of the
Returned Candidate.

25. The pleadings are missing, and
only through the election petition it was
brought to the notice of the Prescribed
Authority that 49 members of other Village
Panchayat had been enrolled in the
electoral
roll
of
Village
Panchayat
Bhangura.
Moreover,
the
Prescribed
Authority wrongly assumed taking note on
11 affidavits that these 49 members have
voted in two villages in violation of Section
62(3) of the Act of 1947 and held the
election of Returned Candidate void.

26.