- (1.) Both these appeals involve common question of fact and law, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. For convenient disposal of both the case, the facts given in C.A.No.6807 of 2005 (Sudarsha Avasthi v. Shiv Pal Singh) are taken into consideration.
(2.) This civil appeal is directed against the order passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow by which three election petitions were disposed of one by the appellant, Jitendra Nath Pandey and Sharad Tiwari by the common order. The appellant before us, Sudarsha Avasthi filed an election petition being Election Petition No.3 of 2002 for declaration of Shiv Pal Singh's election to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council to be void on various grounds. The appellant was an elector in the Electoral Roll for election to the Legislative Council of Uttar Pradesh from Lucknow Division Graduates' Constituency and his name was mentioned at Serial No.1595 of Part No.190 Aliganj Ward Lucknow. The election was held on 2.5.2002 and the result was declared on 7.5.2002. The respondent - Shiv Pal Singh was declared elected. The election of the elected representative- respondent was challenged on the ground that the result of the election had been materially affected by improper acceptance of nomination paper of respondent. Respondent committed corrupt practice by giving money directly to Ram Pratap Singh and Pradeep Kumar with a view to induce them to contest as candidates in the said election. The respondent also committed corrupt practice by giving money to S.P.Singhal with the object of inducing him to withdraw his nomination. Lastly, the respondent committed corrupt practice of procuring assistance in furtherance of his prospects in the election from the Additional Commission (Administration) , Lucknow Division who was the Assistant Returning Officer in the said election. A detailed affidavit was filed by the appellant disclosing the material facts of the corrupt practice. The Election petition was contested by the returned candidate- the respondent, Shiv Pal Singh. It was pleaded on behalf of the respondent that the election petition did not disclose any cause of action, pleadings are vague, frivolous and vexatious. The concise statement of material facts and the full particulars of the allegations of corrupt practices had not been disclosed. Therefore, the election petition was liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 82 & 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ( hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). An application was also filed under Order VI Rule 16 read with Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( hereinafter to be referred to as the C.P.C.) praying for dismissal of the election petition. The respondent moved an application and prayed that the preliminary issues pertaining to the maintainability of the election petition and the other that the election petition lacked material facts and disclosed no cause of action. Two issues were framed as preliminary issues which read as under: " 1. Whether the election petition preferred by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed as it was presented before the Registrar and not before the Judge of the High Court dealing with the election matter 2. Whether the election petition deserves to be dismissed as it does not disclose any cause of action and material facts and the particulars are lacking as alleged at this stage It was also referred by learned Single Judge that during the course of the proceedings, only learned counsel for the respondent- Shiv Pal Singh in Election Petition No.3 of 2002 and the appellant in person submitted their arguments on the preliminary issues as reproduced above. No issues were framed nor any arguments were advanced in the other two election petitions. Therefore, learned Single Judge observed that the order passed in election petition No.3 of 2002 will have no bearing on the other two election petitions.
(3.) So far as the issue No.1 was concerned, learned Single Judge after review of the pleadings, held that it was wrong to say that the election petition was not properly represented. So far as issue No.2 was concerned, learned Single Judge after review of pleadings and arguments made in the petition came to the following conclusion. " The long and short of above discussions is that the petitioner suppressed the material facts which could disclose the cause of action and there being no cause of action, which might have accrued to him, I am of the decisive opinion that this election petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed.";