# Prashant Kumar Singh v. Hakim Lal - **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 438 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2023-12-22 - **Case number:** Election Petition No. 10 of 2022 - **Bench:** Ajit Kumar - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prashant-kumar-singh-v-hakim-lal-50923 - **Pages:** 30 ## Headnote People Act, 1951- Section 23 - Returning officer to include assistant returning officers performing the functions of the returning officer, Section 33 - Presentation of nomination paper and requirement for a valid nomination , Section 81 - Presentation of petitions, Section 82 - Parties to the petition, Section 83 - Contents of petition , Section 86 - Trial of election petitions , Section 100 - Grounds for declaring election to be void, Section 117 - Security for costs , Section 123 - Corrupt practices, Section 125 - Promoting enmity between classes in connection with election, The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 14 - Pleading to be signed, Order VI Rule 16 - Striking out pleadings , Order VII rule 11(a) - Rejection of plaint where it does not disclose cause of action , Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 - Rule 4 - Nomination paper , Rule 4A - Form of affidavit to be filed at the time of delivering nomination paper , The Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 173 - Qualification for membership of the State legislature , Article 225 - Jurisdiction of existing High court , The High Court Rules, 1952 - chapter XV-A - Special Provisions relating to the trial of election petition , definition clause or Rule 2 , Rule 3 - Presentation of election petition - When a petition is filed to question the election of a returned candidate, all election laws must be interpreted strictly, and the petition must fit within relevant law provisions.(Para -56) (B) Election - The Representation of People Act, 1951- provisions of the statute dealing with election laws that provided statutory remedy, must be strictly construed - any fraudulent practise if taken as a ground and does not give a concise material fact statement leading two equal inferences, then pleadings deserve to be dismissed - an election petition in which corrupt practise is alleged stands on a different footing from election petition which does not to carry such allegation - provisions as contained Section 83 to be mandatory and if election petition is not presented in that form then it deserves to be dismissed.(Para - 35,43) (C) Word of phrases - distinction between facta probanda (the facts required to be proved i.e. material facts) and facta probantia (the facts by means of which they are proved i.e. particulars or evidence) - pleadings must contain only facta probanda and not facta probantia.(Para -36) (D) Word of phrases - distinction between "material facts" and "particulars" - must not be overlooked - "Material facts" are primary or basic facts which must be pleaded by the plaintiff or by the defendant in support of the case set up by him either to prove his cause of action or defence - "Particulars", on the other hand, are details in support of material facts pleaded by the party.(Para - 54) (E) Election - The Representation of People Act, 1951- Section 83(1)(a) - Election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts on which petitioner relies, and which facts constitute a cause of action - Omission of a singular fact would lead to incomplete cause of action.(Para - 69) Petition challenges election of returned candidate - for allegations of corrupt practices that led to his victory. (Para - 9) HELD: - Election petition lacks concise material facts and material particulars required under Section 83 (1)(a),(b). Nomination form and affidavit are integral parts of the petition but not filed. Averments are vague and confusing, and the cause of action is not disclosed. Therefore, miscellaneous applications filed under Section 440 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 86(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951 and Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC are allowed. (Para -76) Election Petition dismissed. (E-7) List of Cases cited: ## Text _Characters 0–39,977 of 105,106. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39977 for what follows._ 438 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES in re; Amit Yadav (supra) has held that on account of continuous defects in verification of the petition, the annexures and the scheduled attached thereto, the petition cannot be said to be in compliance of the provisions of Section 83 of the Act and thus, the cause of action remains incomplete and the election petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. 47. Though, learned counsel for the election petitioner has argued that the returned candidate/respondent hereto has not disclosed his criminal antecedents strictly in accordance with law while filling up his nomination paper and has also tried to demonstrate some more contents but all those arguments, material, submissions and contents may be seen if the election petition is tried on merits but when it is clear that the election petition cannot be said to be in compliance of the provisions of Section 83 of the Act and the cause of action remains incomplete, the election petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold and it is not necessary to enter into and examine the merits of other rival contentions advanced on behalf of the election petitioner. 48. In any election petition, there are two stages; first is to verify as to whether the election petition has been filed properly, to be more precise, strictly following the provisions of Section 81 or 82 or 117 of the Act and without ignoring the requirements of Section 83 of the Act read with relevant provisions of C.P.C. and the cause of action should be clear and complete. It is trite that if any election petition does not succeed on this first part, it cannot be sent for its trial on merits. At the same time, the second stage would be if the election petition has been filed in compliance of aforesaid provisions of the Act and the cause of action is complete, then it will qualify to the next stage i.e. the complete trial of election petition on merits. If the election petition fails on its first stage, though there are some arguments of election petitioner to the effect that the returned candidate/respondent of the petition has not furnished his/ her complete detail and has not furnished his/her complete criminal antecedents, yet those submissions may not be tested on merits. In other words, to me, to try any election petition on merits, such election petition will have to qualify the first test, as observed above. 49. In view of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am of the considered opinion that this election petition does not qualify the first stage inasmuch as the election petition has not been filed making compliance of the provisions of Section 83 of the Act and the cause of action is incomplete. Therefore, it cannot go for trial and also it is not necessary to enter into and examine the merits of other rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the election petitioner. 50. Accordingly, the application for rejection/dismissal of the present election petition filed on behalf of the respondent is allowed and the instant election petition is dismissed. ---------- (2024) 1 ILRA 438 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.12.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J. Election Petition No. 10 of 2022 Prashant Kumar Singh ...Petitioner Versus Hakim Lal ...Respondent 1 All. Prashant Kumar Singh Vs. Hakim Lal 439 Counsel for the Petitioner: In Person, Sri Mithilesh Kumar Rai, Sri Prashant Kumar Singh (In Person), Sri Vijay Kumar Singh, Sri Manish Goyal (Sr. Advocate), Sri Ravi Shankar Prasad (Sr. Advocate) Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Narendra Kumar Pandey, Sri Piyush Shukla, Ms. Divya, Sri Manish Kesarwani (A) Election - The Representation of People Act, 1951- Section 23 - Returning officer to include assistant returning officers performing the functions of the returning officer, Section 33 - Presentation of nomination paper and requirement for a valid nomination , Section 81 - Presentation of petitions, Section 82 - Parties to the petition, Section 83 - Contents of petition , Section 86 - Trial of election petitions , Section 100 - Grounds for declaring election to be void, Section 117 - Security for costs , Section 123 - Corrupt practices, Section 125 - Promoting enmity between classes in connection with election, The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 14 - Pleading to be signed, Order VI Rule 16 - Striking out pleadings , Order VII rule 11(a) - Rejection of plaint where it does not disclose cause of action , Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 - Rule 4 - Nomination paper , Rule 4A - Form of affidavit to be filed at the time of delivering nomination paper , The Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 173 - Qualification for membership of the State legislature , Article 225 - Jurisdiction of existing High court , The High Court Rules, 1952 - chapter XV-A - Special Provisions relating to the trial of election petition , definition clause or Rule 2 , Rule 3 - Presentation of election petition - When a petition is filed to question the election of a returned candidate, all election laws must be interpreted strictly, and the petition must fit within relevant law provisions.(Para -56) (B) Election - The Representation of People Act, 1951- provisions of the statute dealing with election laws that provided statutory remedy, must be strictly construed - any fraudulent practise if taken as a ground and does not give a concise material fact statement leading two equal inferences, then pleadings deserve to be dismissed - an election petition in which corrupt practise is alleged stands on a different footing from election petition which does not to carry such allegation - provisions as contained Section 83 to be mandatory and if election petition is not presented in that form then it deserves to be dismissed.(Para - 35,43) (C) Word of phrases - distinction between facta probanda (the facts required to be proved i.e. material facts) and facta probantia (the facts by means of which they are proved i.e. particulars or evidence) - pleadings must contain only facta probanda and not facta probantia.(Para -36) (D) Word of phrases - distinction between "material facts" and "particulars" - must not be overlooked - "Material facts" are primary or basic facts which must be pleaded by the plaintiff or by the defendant in support of the case set up by him either to prove his cause of action or defence - "Particulars", on the other hand, are details in support of material facts pleaded by the party.(Para - 54) (E) Election - The Representation of People Act, 1951- Section 83(1)(a) - Election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts on which petitioner relies, and which facts constitute a cause of action - Omission of a singular fact would lead to incomplete cause of action.(Para - 69) Petition challenges election of returned candidate - for allegations of corrupt practices that led to his victory. (Para - 9) HELD: - Election petition lacks concise material facts and material particulars required under Section 83 (1)(a),(b). Nomination form and affidavit are integral parts of the petition but not filed. Averments are vague and confusing, and the cause of action is not disclosed. Therefore, miscellaneous applications filed under Section 440 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 86(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951 and Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC are allowed. (Para -76) Election Petition dismissed. (E-7) List of Cases cited: 1. M. Karunanidhi Vs H.V. Handa & ors., AIR 1983 SC 558 2. U.S. Sasidharan Vs K. Karunakaran & anr., AIR 1990 SC 924 3. Mulayam Singh Yadav Vs Dharampal Yadav & ors., (2001) 7 SCC 98 4. Ram Sukh Vs Dinesh Aggarwal, (2009) 10 SCC 541 5. V. Narayanaswamy Vs C.P. Thirunavukkarasu, (2000) 2 SCC 294 6. Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. & ors. Vs Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express & ors. (2006) 3 SCC 100 7. U. S. Sashidharan Vs. K. Karunakaran & anr. , AIR 1990 SC Page 424 8. Kanomizhi Karunanidhi Vs A. Santhana Kumar & ors. passed in S.L.P. (C) No. 28241 of 2019 9. A . Manju Vs Prajwal Revanna @ Prajwal R & ors., (2022) 3 SCC 269 10. Kantaru Rajeevaru (Sabarimala Temple Review-5J.) Vs I.Y.L.A. through Its General Secy. & ors. (2020) 2 SCC 1 11. U.O.I. Vs A .D.R. & anr. , (2002) 5 SCC 294 12. Spencer & Co. Ltd. & anr. Vs Vishwadarshan Distributors Pvt. Ltd. & ors. (1995) 1SCC 259 13. Satish Ukey Vs Devndra Gangadharrao Fadnavis & anr. (2019) 9 SCC 1 14. Madiraj Venkata Ramana Raju Vs Peddireddigari Ramachandra Reddu & ors., AIR 2018 SC 3012 15. Adesh Tyagi Vs Mahesh Sharma , 2020 SCC Online All 589 16. FA Sapa Vs Singoria ,1991 SCC 375 17. Daulatram Chauhan Vs Anand Sharma ,(1984) 2 SCC 64 18. Virendra Nath Gautam Vs Satpal Singh & ors., (2007) 3 SCC 617 19. Sahodrabai Rai Vs Ram Singh Aharwar ,(1968)3 SCR 13 (AIR 1968 SC 1) 20. K. M. Mani Vs P. J. Antony & ors., 1979 2 SCC 221 21. M.R.S.R. Kumar Vs R.S. Rathore, AIR 1964 SC 1545 22. Adesh Tyagi Vs Mahesh Sharma ,(2020) SCC Online All 589 23. T. M. Jacob Vs C. Poulose & ors., (1999) 4 SCC 274 24. Harkirat Singh Vs Amrinder Singh ,(2005) 13 SCC 511 (Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.) 1. Heard Sri Narendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent-returned candidate, namely, Hakim Lal. 2. The election petition questions election to the constituency 58 Handia, district of Prayagraj for the U.P. State legislative assembly. The returned candidate Mr. Hakim Lal has moved application to reject election petitioner under Section 86(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short R.P. Act) and also under rule 11(a) of Order VII of CPC. There is another misc. application under Order VI Rule 16 CPC. 3. The election petition questions the election of returned candidate Mr. Hakim 1 All. Prashant Kumar Singh Vs. Hakim Lal 441 Lal for corrupt practise at his end that led to his victory. 4. It was submitted by learned counsel appearing for the returned candidate that petitioner was eligible to contest the election of the legislative assembly of the State and earned no disqualification either under the R.P. Act,1951 or under the Constitution of India vide its Article 173. It was further submitted that affidavit that contained necessary information on a printed format prescribed for under Rule 4-a read with Section 33 of the R.P. Act, 1951, is meant for display both on the conspicuous place by returning officer, inasmuch as, uploaded on the official website of the State Election Officer. He submitted that such an information continues to be available on the official website and anybody can have easy access to the same. It was also argued that political parties are also required to publish such information regarding their respective candidates and, therefore, every information is made available in the public domain before the election is held and so nobody can be mislead as to credentials of a candidate in public election. 5. He submitted that Section 83(1) provided for an election petition to contain concise statement of material facts upon which petitioner relies and then to set-forth the material particulars of any corrupt practise that is alleged by the petitioner indicating the name of parties who committed such corrupt practise, then date and place of commission of such practise, the petition to be verified and signed by the petitioner and then proviso to Section 83(1), further required election petitioner to file an affidavit to accompany the election petition in a prescribed format in support of allegations of such corrupt practise and particulars thereof. 6. It was argued that subsection 2 of Section 83 provided that schedule or annexure appended to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and in the event if any of these were found to be lacking in an election petition it would deserve dismissal. He submitted that since affidavit was available in the public domain, it ought to have been filed in support of the pleadings, that would have clarified the allegations made as the pleadings, according to him, raised in the relevant paragraphs were quite vague. He also argued that since manner in which pleadings had been raised appeared to be frivolous and vexatious for want of specific and concise statement as to the corrupt practise and the Court even might strike down such pleadings. 7. Now to examine the pleadings as to ground no. 8-a and the pleadings in respect thereof made in paragraph 10 of the election petition, learned Advocate took the Court to the affidavit accompanying election petition as required as per proviso to Section 83-1 of the R.P. Act 1951. 8. Arguing in support of miscellaneous applications Sri Pandey submitted that election petition on the ground that nomination paper and affidavit on form 26 were not properly filled as per Section 33 and 33-A of the R.P.Act, itself was not maintainable for the reason that no such nomination form as filed under Section 33 nor, form 26 accompanied it. He submitted that Section 33 of the R.P. Act, 1951 referred to nomination paper to be completed and filled on prescribed format. The form was prescribed under Rule 4 of 442 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES the 1961 Rules and nomination paper was given as form 2-b. He submitted that prior to the Amending Act no. 72 of 2002 whereby Section 33-A was inserted after Section 33, further rule 4-a came to be inserted after Rule 4 under Rules 1961 and then part III-A also came to be added. He submitted that form 26 was altogether a different form prescribed for under Rule 4a read with Section 33-A and the column that were referred to in part 'a' and part 'b' of that form had nothing to do with Section 33. In so far as information furnished by the candidate in form 26 was concerned, it was submitted that there was description of criminal antecedents. He submitted that ground though talked of criminal antecedents not having been disclosed, but this ground has not been developed in pleadings to be a "concise statement of material facts" and "full particulars of corrupt practise" so as to maintain election petition under Section 81 of the R.P. Act, 1951. It was submitted that the ground was that description of criminal antecedents had resulted in unduly influencing the voter in casting their votes in favour of the returned candidate being quite vague and misleading. 9. It was submitted that in paragraph 10, it was stated that 'part- a column 5', dealt with information of pending criminal cases and while in 5-i, the candidate had put mark "(√)". He had to argue further in detail the pending criminal case in column 5 ii and then later on it was stated in paragraph 10 that petitioner instead of referring to any first information report with details of criminal case number or year of complaint case number had merely referred to range case number and this according to the election petitioner was enough to misguide and mislead the voters inasmuch as information so far furnished was also fake one. 10. It was further submitted that statement in paragraphs were to the effect that in absence of first information report number, case number, or year number, there was no possibility to trace out the details of the case and resultantly no verification could have been done and so likewise since no registration of the case number was disclosed in column 5-ii, he found on verification from the court of ACJM-5, Prayagraj that at that time no such case was pending in the court's record diary. Thus even this fact was quite misleading, likewise other informations furnished in other sub columns of the column 5 had been claimed to be misleading. 11. Learned counsel for the returned candidate submitted that furnishing of information as zero in column 11(v) of part- b was not wrong as declaration was made by the respondent himself that three criminal cases were pending. Learned counsel for the returned candidate, therefore argued that then in the first instance if there was no pending case in the court of ACJM as is claimed by election petitioner as per verification obtained by him, mentioning of zero in respect of any criminal case would certainly not be misleading. He further submitted that if range case has been referred to in column 5-ii ka, it is because there was no first information report lodged as such by any private person but it was forest department which would register a as case referred to as a range case relating to a particular forest range. 12. Besides above, he argued that no details had been given regarding particular case number or regarding any particular 1 All. Prashant Kumar Singh Vs. Hakim Lal 443 incident that election petitioner had the knowledge or regarding which he acquired the knowledge so as to suggest by way of pleading that information furnished by the petitioner was misleading and that had caused undue influence upon the voters in their free exercise of franchise in an open general election. 13. Thus, it is submitted that since paragraphs that are in support of ground no. 8-A do not contain the material particulars so as to hold there to be any specific material fact and contents of paragraph are quite vague also and so it can be safely concluded that allegations do not meet parameters of clauses a and b of sub section 1 of Section 83 of the Act, 1951. 14. On affidavit accompanying the election petition, counsel for the respondent submits that proviso to sub section 1 of Section 83, requires an affidavit of corrupt practice but the affidavit only refers to certain criminal antecedents and non closure of movable or immovable properties only and there is no reference to any 'corrupt practice' as such as has come to be referred to under section 23 of the R.P. Act, 1951. So affidavit itself is not sufficient to meet requirement of law. He would take this argument further by submitting that affidavit has been sworn on personal knowledge. 15. In so far as paragraph 10 to 19 are concerned it was submitted that what was personal knowledge about non disclosure or concealment of material fact has not been detailed out. It was submitted that personal knowledge of given case can be had so as to make a substantive allegation in support of the ground raised in the petition but that personal knowledge must be specific and concise so as to refer to a particular criminal case or criminal antecedent. It was argued that in order to support this personal knowledge, the affidavit ought to have formed part of the election petition or the affidavit as required under proviso to sub section 1 and 2 of Section 83 of the Act, 1951 but that had not been done. It was submitted, therefore, that affidavit being defective not supporting the election petition as such regarding corrupt practise, grounds taken as 8A, 8B of the election petition, the petition deserved to be dismissed. 16. It is argued that criminal antecedents or declaration of criminal antecedents by itself would not be a corrupt practise within definition as given thereof under section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. 17. Summarizing the argument, following points have been pressed regarding undue influence in which grounds have been raised as ground nos. 8A and 8-B, 8C and 8D. i). the pleadings raised in paragraph 10 and 11 in support thereof do not contain concise statement as to the material fact that may have resulted into corrupt practise of undue influence; ii). since allegations raised in the ground supported by pleadings vide paragraph 10 and 11 of the election petition referred to form 26 and the averments are based on personal knowledge, the said form being the basis of the information disclosed and/ or not disclosed so as to suggest suppression of material information, ought to have been annexed alongwith election petition as it also forms integral part as per sub section 2 of Section 83 and in absence of this material in support of pleadings based upon this document, election petition 444 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES was liable to be rendered is incomplete and having been supplied so also to the defendant respondent as per Section 81(3) of the R.P. Act, 1951. iii). The objection which has been raised for non compliance of proviso to Section 83(1) of the Act, 1951 as it ought to have expressly referred to corrupt practise as defined under Section 123 of the R.P. Act, 1951 and mere words and expression suppression of material information, would not by itself be a corrupt practise inasmuch as swearing of the paragraph nos. 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 is the nature without specifying as to which part of it is based on personal knowledge and which part is based on information and so is liable to be rendered vague not within the meaning of proviso to Section 83(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. Such details therefore would not be sufficient within the meaning of Section 83(i)(b) of the Act, 1951. iv). There is no disclosure of the names of the person agents or representatives from whom information has been received qua corrupt practise and, therefore, allegations are vague in the affidavit. Taking the entire pleadings together and grounds raised the averments to not lead to constitute a cause of action for vagueness and the nomination papers were wrongly and illegally accepted by the Election Officer. 18. Yet another argument has been advanced that parties relying upon the documents in support of the pleadings raised ought to have filed the same alongwith election petition, it being integral part, as per Section Section 81(i)(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 19. In support of arguments advanced by learned learned Advocate Mr. N.K.Pandey and authorities relied upon are M. Karunanidhi v. H.V. Handa and Others, AIR 1983 SC 558, U.S. Sasidharan v. K. Karunakaran and Another, AIR 1990 SC 924, Mulayam Singh Yadav v. Dharampal Yadav and Others, (2001) 7 SCC 98, Ram Sukh v. Dinesh Aggarwal (2009) 10 SCC 541, V. Narayanaswamy v. C.P. Thirunavukkarasu (2000) 2 SCC 294 and Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. And Others v. Owners and Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and Others (2006) 3 SCC 100. 20. Meeting the argument, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Prasad appearing for the election petitioner has argued that petition under Section 86(1) of the R.P. Act can only be dismissed if it does not comply with the provisions as contained under Sections 81 and 82 and Section 117 of the R.P. Act. He submits that non-compliance of the Section 83 cannot be a ground for a dismissal of election petition under Section 86(1). He submits that rules have been framed by the High Court in exercising the power under Section 225 of the Constitution of India to laying down the procedure for presentation and disposal of the election petition. According to him, this power has an overriding effect upon the provisions contained under Order VI Rule 14 C.P.C. He argues that chapter 15(A) Rule 3 of the High Court rules provides the election petition should be presented along with a list of documents. This according to him is a departure from the procedure prescribed under Order VI Rule 14 where documents were required to be appended with the plaint. He has argued that in the case of Kailash Vs. Nanku 2005 law suit it has been held by the Supreme Court vide paragraph 11 of the Allahabad High Court rules framed under chapter 15(A) consisting of 13 rules are special provisions relating to the trial of election petitions and 1 All. Prashant Kumar Singh Vs. Hakim Lal 445 there is no conflict between the rules framed by the High Court and rules under the R.P. Act and the C.P.C. It has been argued by learned Senior Advocate that reference of the document in the paragraph by itself is sufficient and it is not necessary to file those documents also. As according to him, placing reliance upon a document, if the allegations are sufficiently made in the election petition, would be of only evidenciary value and that can be filed at a later stage when the opportunity is afforded to file evidence. 21. Taking the argument further, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Manish Goel has submitted that if the contents of a document have been detailed out in the pleadings then such document is not required to be filed along with election petition and will be only of evidenciary value. He has drawn the attention of the Court, towards paragraph 15 and 16 of the judgment in the case of U. S. Sashidharan Vs. K. Karunakaran and anther AIR 1990 SC Page 424 wherein the legal principle has been discussed in detail and it has been held that if the contents of the document are pleaded in the election petition. Then such documents does not form an integral part of the election petition. Learned counsel for the petition submitted that in that case the Court require the audio cassette in that case form also as to form an integral part of the election petition because the audio cassette titled as Malayudi Purogathi because the contents of the audio cassette were not pleaded in the election petition. Learned Senior Advocate has also relied upon the judgment in the case of M. Karunanidhi Vs. H.P. Handa and others where the Supreme Court after discussing a number of judgments had already held by paragraph 34 and 35 that if the allegations as to the pamphlet could be detailed in the pleadings and held that if the proper contents have been detailed out regarding a document in the pleading part of the election petition then such a document would only be an evidence. In proof of the averments so need not be filed with the election petition. 22. It is submitted that since where clauses and the details that were filled in by the returned candidate in affidavit as per prescribed form 26 , the said affidavit was not required to be filled. In so far as the allegations regarding verification of facts as to the criminal proceedings of which range case number was given in column 5(ii)(a), a mere statement was sufficient that verification was made from the Court record registered and no such case was found to be registered. However, he would admit that there is no date given about the inspection/verification. Mr Manish Goel further submits that details of the form as filled in have already been averred in the paragraph 10 and 11 and merely because one verification was sought from the Court record was one verification was taken regarding one entry would not weaken other allegations made according to wrong information given in the affidavit. He further argues that rest of the paragraph had refer to various documents have demonstrated that they ought to have been declared as such correctly in the form, have already been filed and referred to in the schedule appended 2 in the election petition and complete set of the paper book has been served upon the returned candidate and other contesting respondents in the election petition. 23. The learned Senior Advocate Mr. Manish Goyal as well as Sri Ravi Shankar Prasad appearing for the election petitioner have also relied upon some more 446 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES authorities of the Supreme Court in the case of Kanomizhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar and Others passed in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 28241 of 2019 and A . Manju v. Prajwal Revanna @ Prajwal R and Others, (2022) 3 SCC 269, Kantaru Rajeevaru (Sabarimala Temple Review-5J.) v. Indian Young Lawyers Association through Its General Secretary and Others (2020) 2 SCC 1, Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms and Another (2002) 5 SCC 294, Spencer & Company Ltd. And Another v. Vishwadarshan Distributors Pvt. Ltd. And Others (1995) 1SCC 259, Satish Ukey v. Devndra Gangadharrao Fadnavis and Another (2019) 9 SCC 1, Madiraj Venkata Ramana Raju v. Peddireddigari Ramachandra Reddu and Others, AIR 2018 SC 3012 and Adesh Tyagi v. Mahesh Sharma 2020 SCC Online All 589. 24. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, noticing their arguments as above and authorities cited by learned Advocates and having perused the record, I find that the basic grounds upon which election petition is based, is of corrupt practice committed by returned candidate in getting elected in public election for the legislative assembly, and therefore, question that arises for consideration at this stage while I am dealing with miscellaneous applications are; Whether the there has been concise statement of material facts regarding charge of corrupt practise and statements as to material particulars of corrupt practise and whether nomination and affidavit on form 26 would form an integral part of the election petition and not accompanying election paper, election petition would be liable to be dismissed under Section 81(1) of R.P. Act, 1951, and the second aspect that is required to be looked into; and Whether election petition discloses a cause of action to maintain it and that the statement of facts are not so vexatious or vague so as to dismiss the petition at the very threshold under Order VII Rule 11 (a) of CPC. 25. In so far as first point that I need to address, relates to miscellaneous application moved by the returned candidate to reject the petition having not been presented in the form as is prescribed for that it not only lacks concise statement of material facts and material particular as to corrupt practise but is also not accompanied by document of nomination form and affidavit on form 26 which are claimed to be an integral part, and therefore, petition is liable to be rejected under Section 86(1) of the Representatives of the People Act, 1951. 26. The second point refers to miscellaneous application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) of the CPC and Order 6 Rule 16 of the CPC to reject the petition as it does not disclose the cause of action even if it is taken in its entirety. The averments made in certain paragraphs in writ petition are alleged, to be quite vexatious and vague and deserve to be struck off. 27. Now coming to the first point, I need to first take into account the grounds upon which challenge to election petition has been developed in this petition. The first ground no. 8A is to the effect that material facts as to details of criminal cases that were required to be disclosed in affidavit on form-26 prescribed under the R.P. Act, were concealed and suppressed 1 All. Prashant Kumar Singh Vs. Hakim Lal 447 vide Column 5(ii) (a)(b) and (c) of part A of the form and then false declaration in Column 5 (ii) (e)(g) and then further in Column 11(5) of part B of form 26 of nomination form and Clause 6(A) and such practise would constitute corrupt practise of undue influence in terms of Section 123 (2) of R.P. Act read with Section 100 (1) (b) of the R.P. Act, 1950. 28. This suppression of criminal antecedents, to the credit of the returned candidate was, it was alleged deliberately done, in order to mislead public and such non disclosure or disclosure of misleading particulars vitiated the mandate contained under Section 33-A of the R.P. Act and Clause 6(A) note 5 of Form 26 a prescribed form of affidavit. 29. Similarly vide ground 8B, it is stated that Column7(A) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v), 7 (B) (i)(iii) and Column 8(i) of nomination form were not complete qua liability towards bank loan. So there was a deliberate attempt to suppress crucial facts relating to property, income and liability towards bank and has counted to corrupt practise. 30. Similar set of allegations have been made in ground no. 10 that relate to disclosure regarding pending criminal cases and charge is that returned candidate had put (√ ) mark in affirmative in Column 5(ii) a-g and then details recording FIR number name of police station with address where criminal cases have been registered, were not at all disclosed and only disclosure was 'range case' number in Column 5 (ii) (a) which amounted to a fake information. Neither year, nor police station was disclosed and similarly in Column 5 (ii) (b)(c) no registration number of the case was disclosed and when he enquired from the court of ACJM vth, Prayagraj, then it was found that no such case was registered in the court's diary that was maintained to mention cases. Similarly, information was stated to be misleading in Column 5 (ii) (d). Again in column 5 (ii) (e), the disclosure of date of charge was given while the Court had taken cognizance upon the charge by summoning the returned candidate. Since there was no proper nomination paper filed giving all those particulars required, of which verification was to be done by the election officer as to whether requisite form 26 was properly filled up or not as required under Section 33A of the R.P. Act and the manner in which it was filled, it was intended to unduly influence the voter. 31. One of the grounds, therefore, is that acceptance of nomination paper of the returned candidate was against provision of Section 33 of the Act read with Rule 4 of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. 32. Sri Pandey, since has mainly attacked on these three grounds to be not only vague confusing but lacking concise statement of material facts and also material particulars in relation to corrupt practise of non disclosure of relevant case number and confusing declaration in affidavit that makes nomination form to be defective and yet despite mentioning of these documents as item number 1 in the schedule, they were not made part of the election petition by appending them with to make election petition competent and further that affidavit that was required to be filed indicating corrupt practise as such was not as mandated, I proceed to examine these grounds and the facts stated in support thereof in the first place to answer the question raised regarding maintainability of this petition. 448 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 33. As to first point above to which ground no. 8A, 8B and 8C and paragraph nos. 10 and 1 are relevant, these grounds and paragraphs are being reproduced hereunder: "8A Because returned candidate while delivering the nomination form in term of section 33 of the Act deliberately not disclosed and suppressed of facts regarding criminal antecedents in entirety with full details in part A Column 5 (ii) (ka) (kha) (ga) and made a false declaration in part A Column 5 (ii) (ng) (chha) as well as in Part B column 11 (5) of form 26 of nomination form which constitute a corrupt practice of undue influence in terms of section 123 (2) and covered under section 100 91)(b) of the Act, especially where the returned candidate has special knowledge of the pending cases in which the court has taken cognizance upon the charge. Deliberate attempt to suppress the criminal antecedents required to be inform as mandated by section 33 A of the Act and clause 6(ka) note 5 of form 26 would effort to misguide and keep the people/voter in dark; thus it is undue influence and its amounts to corrupt practice in terms of section 123(2) of the Act as the section 33 A of the Act and rule 4-A creates impediment upon the candidates to disclose information in free exercise of electoral right. 8B. Because returned candidate while delivered the nomination form in term of section 33 of the Act deliberately not disclosed and suppressed the material facts regarding the movable, immovable property and liability towards banks loan, the account shown in part A column 7 (a) (ii) (iii)(iv) (v) column 7 (b), (i)(iii) and column 8 (I) in entirety is incomplete and the full detail of bank accounts, property, share in joint family property and proprietorship business has been suppressed by the returned candidate which constitute corrupt practise of undue influence covered under section 100 (1)(b) of the Act, especially where the returned candidate has special knowledge of the transition. Deliberate attempt to suppress the property, income and liability of the bank required to be furnishing as mandated by section 33-A of the Act would effort to misguide and keep the people in dark,Ttus it is undue influence. The act of returned candidate amounts to corrupt practise under section 12(2), thereby covered under section 100 (i)(b) of the Act. 8C. Because returning officer improperly accepted the nomination paper of Returned Candidate against the provision of section 33 of the Act read with rule 4 of the conduct of election Rule 1961 and failed to adhere with the provision of section 36 of the Act thus the election of the returned candidate from 258 legislative assembly constituencies is required to be declared void. 10. That the returned candidate delivered his nomination from accompanying with form 26 in terms of section 33 of the Act read with Rule 4 of the conduct of election Rules 1961 on 05.02.2022. The form 26 contains in two parts; Part "A" column 1 to 4 was filled up by the returned candidate where the personal details of himself, spouse and his dependents were furnished. Part "A" column 5 deals with the information of pending criminal cases. This column further divided into two parts; first part 5(i) requires that if there is no criminal case pending against the candidate he puts the mark " " against the column 5(i) and it further says that if there is a criminal case pending against the candidate he put the mark ' ' against column 5(ii) and furnish the details of pending criminal cases in later part of column 5(ii) ka-chha. The 1 All. Prashant Kumar Singh Vs. Hakim Lal 449 returned candidate put the mark ' ' against column 5 (ii) and declared that criminal case was pending against him Column 5 (ii) (ka) mandate the information of FIR number and the name of the police station with the address where the criminal case has registered. The returned candidate instead of furnishing the FIR No. or case crime no. and year or complaint case no. and year with the name and address of the police station or court filled up the column 5 (ii) (ka) as "range case no." and year to misguide the voters. In fact this was a fake information and the some sections were also not in-existence moreover the criminal or complaint case are being identified in the State of U.P. from the FIR no./case crime no. with the particular years and police station. In each police station there is separate register maintain permanently for the registration of each crime known as FIR Register and in absence of the FIR no. , date and year or case crime no. , date year or complaint case no. and year or details of court it could not be possible to trace out the detail of case. Since each police station there is separate numbers allotted to the crime and in complaint case separate no. of complaint and year has been registered by the concerned court. Therefore in absence of FIR no. year or name of the police station and its address or complaint case no. year, or details of court description the information of case could not be possible. Likewise the return candidate to misguide and keep the people /voter in dark in order to make undue influence upon them irrelevant and fake information has furnished in part A column 5(ii)(ka), likewise in column 5(ii) (kha) (ga) the return candidate id not disclose the registration of case no., year registered in court. The returned candidate further given a false declaration that criminal case is pending in the court of ACJM 5 Prayagraj while at the time of declaration i.e. 05.02.2022 no such case was found in the court record diary maintain for the functioning of court.