- (1.) In the instant Election Petition the petitioner has challenged election of the respondent No. 1 and has also prayed that the said election be declared void and the petitioner be declared elected having received majority of valid votes polled. The respondent No. 1 has filed written statement. Thereafter, on 8-10-96 issues were framed and following issues were settled :- "1. Is the Election Petition liable to be dismissed for non-service of the correct copy of the petition and for non-compliance with Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 of the present petition? 2 Are the allegations of corrupt practices are made in paragraphs 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 29 of the petition and different sub-paragraphs thereof correct? 3 Does the Election Petition disclose any cause of action? 4 Is the Election Petitioner entitled to a declaration that the election of the respondent No. 1 of 212 Ramnagar Legislative Assembly Constituency void? 5 Is the election petitioner entitled to recounting of votes as prayed for in the Petition? 6 To what relief, if any, is the election petitioner entitled?"
(2.) On 6-5-97 the Preliminary issue was taken up and disposed of by the following order :- "It is stated by Mr. Ganguly, learned Advocate for the respondents that he has already raised a preliminary objection as to maintainability of this Election Petition in the Written Statement that correct copy of page 3 of the affidavit of compliance relating to corrupt practice was not supplied to him.Mr. Mullick, learned Advocate for the petitioner disputes the said submissions and an submits that true copy of the Petition along with the affidavit of compliance relating to corrupt practice has been sent to the respondent No. 1 immediately after the objection is raised in the written statement.In that view of the matter, Mr. Ganguly withdraws the preliminary objection.Preliminary issue is disposed of with the observation as recorded above.With regard to other issues, Mr. Mullick submits the matter may be taken up on next Tuesday."
(3.) On 5-8-97 Mr. Mallick, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not willing to proceed with the allegation of corrupt practice and as such the issue No. 2 need not be decided. In view of the aforesaid statement of Mr. Mallick the said issue was dropped.;