Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) In these appeals under S. 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short the Act) challenge is made to judgment and order dated 27-12-2002 passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the election petition filed by the appellant, by accepting prayers made by the respondent No. 1 in that regard. As the issues involved are pristinely legal, reference to the factual scenario briefly would suffice.
(2.) Election was held to Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly on 11-9-1999. The controversy in the present appeal relates to 10 Saluru (ST) Legislative Assembly Constituency which is reserved for members of the Scheduled Tribe. Respondent No. 1 filed his nomination claiming to be a member of Scheduled Tribe. His nomination was accepted and objections to his candidature were rejected. Nominations of some candidates were also rejected. Respondent No. 1 after poll was declared elected in the election. The appellant filed election petition under Ss. 5 and 100(1)(c) and (d)(i) of the Act before the High Court on 19-11-1999. Primary stand taken in the election petition appears to be that the claim of respondent No. 1 that he is a member of Scheduled Tribe is not correct. Application was filed by present respondent No. 1 under O. VI, R. 16 and O. VII, R. 11 read with S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the CPC) and S. 86 of the Act praying for rejection of the election petition on the ground that locus of the petitioner was not established, no cause of action was disclosed and affidavit accompanying the petition was not in the prescribed form, verification done and the affidavit filed did not conform to the requirements as laid down in the statute in regard to alleged corrupt practice and, therefore, the same was misconceived and was liable to be rejected. Appellant filed his response to the application.
(3.) On consideration of the rival stands the High Court came to hold that though essentially there was no definite allegation of corrupt practices, yet allegations that somebody played fraud and has approached the electorate claiming that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe and get selected are similar to, if not higher in gravity than allegations as to corrupt practices. The allegations are to be treated at bar with those relating to corrupt practices. That being so it was held that the affidavit was not in the proper form and that election petition was not maintainable, as material facts were not pleaded, and merely some unreliable and improper averment were made and that required rejection of the petition. It was observed that the verification as required to be done in terms of O. VI, R. 15, C.P.C. were not complied with. The verification was extremely vague and it was not stated as to what was the source of information on which pleadings were based and which part really was on the basis of personal knowledge and information was also not indicated. It was additionally noted that the petitioner was very casual in filing the election petition; even the district to which the election petitioner claimed to belong was described differently in the election petition. In conclusion it was noted by the High Court as follows : (a) The election petition does not disclose a valid cause of action; (b) It contains several paragraphs which do not fit into an Election Petition filed under Ss. 5 and 100(1)(d)(i) of the Act; (c) There does not exist any valid verification of the pleadings; (d) The affidavit filed by the petitioner along with the election petition does not conform to the form prescribed (Form No. 25) under R. 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (in short the Rules). ;