O.P.Garg, J. - (1.) Heard Sri R. C. Srivastava, assisted by Sri Ashok Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel.
(2.) The petitioner was declared elected as Adhyaksha, Nagar Palika Parishad, Konch on 27.1.1995. The respondent No. 2, Dr. Avadh Behari filed a petition to challenge the election of the petitioner under the provisions of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said petition is pending before the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Jalaun at Oral. The petitioner filed a written statement. Besides him. the Returning Officer has also filed a written statement. Issues have been framed in the case. Learned Additional District Judge has decided the Issue Nos. 6. 7. 8 and 9 as preliminary issues by a composite order dated 23.3.1999. The petitioner had also filed an application with the prayer that the election petition be dismissed under Order VII. Rule 11 read with Section 151, C.P.C. on the ground of non-compliance of the mandatory requirements. A copy of the application filed by the petitioner is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The controversy raised in the aforesaid application was the subject-matter of the preliminary issue No. 7 which has been decided by the Tribunal below against present petitioner and in favour of the election petitioner-respondent No, 2.
(3.) Sri R. C. Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the order passed by the Court below does not comprehend correct legal position and that it would be a futile exercise to proceed with an election petition, which otherwise is not maintainable on account of non-compliance of the mandatory requirements of Section 20 of the Act. It was pointed out that the election petition does not disclose the material facts and cause of action ; that it does not contain a concise statement of material facts as required under the law and that the view taken by the Court below is contrary to the well embedded principles of law laid down by the apex court as well as this Court. It was pointed out that the various provisions with regard to the election petition contained in the U. P. Municipalities Act are part materia with various provisions contained in Chapter II of the Representation of the People Act. 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1951'). particularly Sections 80 to 84 and, therefore, the law laid down by the apex court as well as this Court with reference to the provisions of the Act of 1951 is applicable to the election petition filed under the Act. Section 83 of the Act of 1951 deals with the contents of petition. It provides that : "(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." A reference was made to the decisions of the Apex Court in Jitendra Bahadur Singh v. Krishna Behari and others, AIR 1970 SC 276 ; Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind and others, AIR 1975 SC 2117 ; N. Narayanan v. S. Semmalai and others, AIR 1980 SC 206 and Azhar Hussan v. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1986 SC 1253 as well as decisions of this Court in Ram Singh v. Kazi Mohiuddin and others. AIR 1988 All 210 and Koshi Nath Misra v. Vikramaditya Pandey and others. AIR 1993 All 32. The first three decisions of the apex court relate to the question of inspection of ballot papers and the requirement to be satisfied before the Tribunal can permit the inspection. It was held that the basic requirement to be satisfied before the election Tribunal can permit the inspection of ballot papers are (i) that the petition for setting aside elections must contain adequate statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies in support of his case and (ii) the Tribunal must be, prima facie. satisfied that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete justice between the parties, inspection of the ballot papers is necessary. The material facts required to be stated are those facts which can be considered as materials supporting the allegations made. In other words, they must be such facts as to afford a basis for the allegations made in the petition. if an election petitioner in his election petition gives some figures as to the rejection of valid votes and acceptance of invalid votes, the same must not be considered as an adequate statement of material facts when the petitioner has not disclosed in his petition the basis on which he arrived at those figures. This Court has also taken the consistent view that an election petition without material facts and material particulars relating to a corrupt practice is no election petition at all. In Ram Singh's case (supra) this Court has taken the view that the word 'material' in Section 83 shows that the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action must be stated. Omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and the statement of claim becomes bad. So the material facts are those which constitute a complete cause of action. it means that no petition can be said to have disclosed full cause of action, if it is bereft of the material facts. The material facts are necessary to present a composite picture of cause of action. The absence of cause of action and in the absence of cause of action, a petition which is governed by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.;