SHRI MEMBOR GOGOI Vs. SMTI RENUPAMA RAJKUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has called in question the election of respondent No. 1, Smti Renupama Rajkhowa from 102 Teok Legislative Assembly Constituency of Assam of the last general election held in the month of June, 1991. After receipt of the notice respondent No. 1 has filed an application under Order VT Rule 5 and 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with the prayer to direct the election petitioner to furnish material particulars in respect of the allegations contained in the election petition and as required under section 83 of the Representation of People Act as well as under Order VI. Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure and on his failure to do so, to strike out the pleadings.

(2.) The election petition is solely founded on the allegations of anomalies in counting of polled ballots. The prayer of the election petitioner is for ordering recount of the polled votes in the last election and to declare the election of respondent No. 1 as void under section 100 of the Representation of People Act, hereinafter referred to as the RP Act) and on the basis of the result after recounting, to declare that the petitioner to have been duly elected from the 302 Teok Legislative Assembly Constituency having polled majority of valid votes in his favour. The election of respondent No. 1 has not been called in question on the allegation of commission of corrupt practices under any head of section 123 of the RP Act.

(3.) I have heard Mr. S.N. Medhi, learned counsel for the respondent-applicant and Mr. A.M. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the election petitioner. Mr. Medhi has drawn my attention to section 83 of the RP Act and Order VI Rule 4 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and submits that due to vagueness of the allegations which is devoid of any particulars, the respondent No, 1 is unable to make/submit reply to the allegations effectively by filing written statement. Petitioner is legally bound to furnish the full particulars of the allegations. In support of the contention Mr. Medhi has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the following cases :