ALOK Vs. MOTILAL VORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A bye -election was held on 26th of March 1989 to fill up vacancy to the seat from 162 Durg constituency of the State assembly Before that, the election programme had been published by the Returning Officer on 28th of February. In accordance with the said programme, the prospective candidates had to file their nomination papers not later than 1st of March. The date of scrutiny had been 2nd of March and date of withdrawal 4th of March. After the election, the counting was to take place on 27th of March and the election result was to be declared on the same day.

(2.) AFTER scrutiny and withdrawals, 13 persons were declared to be contesting candidates for the bye -election. Respondent Shri Motilal Vora was amongst these 13 contesting candidates. He was a candidate of the Indian National Congress having the symbol of 'hand' (Hath). He had been a Minister in the Central Cabinet. After leaving the same, he bad been the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh since January, 1989. In the polling held on 26th of March 1989, the total votes cast were 1,11,050. Having secured 77, 487 votes, respondent Shri Vora was declared as duly elected to fill the seat in the State assembly from the particular constituency. One Shri Bise Yadav, an independent candidate, was Shri Vora's nearest rival. While losing to Sari Vora, he had secured 21, 154 votes in the bye election.

(3.) AFTER the service of notice of petition on him, the returned candidate i.e. respondent Shri Motilal Vora instead of filing his written statement made an application I.A.No.2/89) purporting to be one under order 7 rule 11 C.P.C. raising a preliminary objection that as the allegations made in grounds 1 to VIII mentioned in para 7 of the petition even assuming them to be true and correct do not make out any case of corrupt practice or any ground under section 100 of the Representation of the People Act the petition is liable to be dismissed on the short ground of disclosing no cause of action. In his reply to the said application, it is denied by the petitioner that the grounds urged by him did not disclose any cause of action for challenging the election of the respondent in the bye -election. It is submitted by him that as the returned candidate i.e. the respondent failed to submit his written statement the trial of the petition has to be proceeded with as if there was no written statement on record. After hearing both the parties, it is the above said preliminary objection raised by the respondent in I.A. No. 2/89 which is being disposed of by this order.