DHARTIPAKAR MADAN LAL AGARWAL Vs. RAJIV GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under S. 116A, Representation of the People Act, 1050 is directed against the order of the High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) dated 12-10-1981 rejecting the election petition filed by the appellant questioning the election of the respondent as member of the Lok Sabha.

(2.) A by- election was held on June 14 1981 to fill up the vacancy to the Lok Sabha caused by the death of Sanjay Gandhi in the 25th Amethi Constituency in District Sultanpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The appellant, the respondent and 13 other candidates contested the election. On 15th June 1981 Rajiv Gandhi was declared elected having polled 258894 votes while the appellant polled 2728 votes only. The appellant filed an election petition under S.80, Representation of the People Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) questioning the validity of the respondent on a number of grounds, including the allegations of corrupt practice of undue influence, hiring and procuring of vehicles for carrying voters and obtaining the assistance of Government servants and incurring expenses at the election in excess of the permissible limit. The High Court issued notice to the respondent who appeared before it and made an application under O. VI, R. 16, Civil P. C. for striking out the pleadings contained therein as the same were vague, general, unnecessary, frivolous and vexatious which did not disclose any cause of action. Respondent further prayed that the election petition be rejected under O. VII R. 11, C.P.C. read with S. 87 of the Act.

(3.) A learned single Judge of the High Court before whom the preliminary objections were raised caused service of the copy of the objections on the appellant who was appearing in person and granted time to him to submit his reply. The appellant, however, did not submit any reply to the preliminary objections and in spite of date being fixed for hearing arguments in his presence he did not appear before the Court on the date fixed for arguments. The learned Judge after hearing the. arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent passed an order on 12th October 1981 holding that the various paras contained in the petition were vague and the same did not contain sufficient averments to constitute any corrupt practice and the various paras of the petition were unnecessary, frivolous and vexatious within the meaning of O. VI, R. 16, Civil P.C. The learned Judge struck off paras 2 to 53, 55 to 57 and rejected the petition under O. VII, R. 11 read with S. 87 of the Act on the ground that the election petition did not disclose any cause of action. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the said order.