Mr v. D. Salunke &
Case Details
2025:BHC-AUG:14931 1 Appln.EP35.2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADAPPLICATION IN ELECTION PETITION NO.35 OF 2024.Smt. Shobha Dinesh BacchavAge: 64 years, Occu.: Medical Practitioner,R/o. Dhanvantri Hospital, Pet Road,Panchavati, Nashik, Dist. Nashik.. Applicant(Ori. Respondent No.3)VERSUS1.Dr. Shri Subhash Ramrao Bhamre,Age: 71 years, Occu.: Medical Practitioner,R/o. Plot No.16, Badgujar, Parola Road,Dist. Dhule(Ori. Petitioner)2.The Election Commission of India,Through Chief Election Commissioner,Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road,New Delhi3.The Returning Officer,Dhule Parliamentary Constituency 02@ The Collector,Dhule, Dist. Dhule,C/o. Collector Office, Dhule, Dist. Dhule4.Shri Bharat Baburao Jadhav,Age: 42 years, Occu.: Labour,R/o. At Pimpri, Po. Vadjai,Tq. & Dist. Dhule5.Zahor Ahamad Mohamad Yusuf (Jam Jam)Age: 54 years, occu.: Agri.,R/o. 3047/A, Panch Kandil,Agra Road, Dhule, Dist. Dhule6.Shafeeque Ahemad Md. Rafeeque,Age: 44 years, Occu.: Business,R/o.: Survey No.43, Plot No.2,Shahid Abdul Hamid Road, Ganesh Nagar,Malegaon, Dist. Nashik 2 Appln.EP35.20247.Shri Namdeo Rohidas Yalave,Age: 52 years, Occu.: Business,R/o.: At Post Walkheda,Tq. Shindkheda, Dist. Dhule8.Shri Sachin Umaji Nikam,Age: 35 Years, Occu.: Advocate,R/o.: At Dabali, Post. Kashti,Tq. Malegaon, Dist. Nashik9.Shri Raj Chavan,Age: 55 years, occu.: Agri.,R/o.22, Jamanagiri Road,Golibar Tekadi Area, Sushil Nagar,Dhule, Tq. & Dist. Dhule10.Mohammad Ismail Jumman,Age: 64 years, Occu.: Labour,R/o. House No.10, Lane No.5,Survey No.209/1, Munshi Shaban Nagar,Malegaon, Dist. Nashik11.Shri Suresh Jagannath Brahmankar,Age: 67 years, Occu.: Labour,At Post Jaykheda, Tq. Baglaan,Dist. Nashik12.Shri Shivaji Nathu Patil,Age: 43 years, Occu.: Labour,R/o. Shivaji Chouk, Aarvi,Dist. Dhule13.Shaikh Mohammad Zaid Shamim Ahmed,Age: 53 years, Occu.: Private Service,R/o. 201, Aksa Tower, Samrath Colony,Chalisgaon road, Near Apni Bakery, Dhule14.Mohammad Aameen Mohammad Faruque,Age: 45 years, Occu.: Business,R/o. S. No.92, Plot No.4,Jafar Nagar, Malegaon, Dist. Nashik15.Muqeem Meena Nagri,
Legal Reasoning
3 Appln.EP35.2024Age: 43 years, Occu.: Business,R/o. S.R. No.19, H. 51,Mominpura, Islampur, Malegaon,Dist. Nashik16.Irfan Mo. Ishak (Nadir),Age: 43 years, Occu.: Social Worker,R/o. 37 A near Beef Market, Navapura,Malegaon, Tq. Malegaon, Dist. Nashik17.Shri Malay Prakash Patil,Age: 35 years, Occu.: Business,R/o. “Umed Nivas” Chinchavali Wadi,Goregaon, Tq. Mangoon, Dist. Rajgad18.Abdul Hafeez Abdul Haque,Age: 39 years, Occu.: Labour,R/o. House No.2536/13,Maulana Azad Road, Maulavi Ganj,Dhule, Dist. Dhule .. Respondents…Advocate for Applicant : Mr. V. D. Salunke & Mr. A. V. DeshmukhAdvocate for Non-applicant No.1/ Election Petitioner: Mr. Mukul Kulkarni & Mr. Umesh G. MitkariAdvocate for Non-applicants No.2 & 3 :Mr. Alok SharmaAdvocate for Respondent 10 in EP : Mr. Mohit S. Shah…WITH...ELECTION PETITION NO. 2 OF 2024.Dr. Shri Subhash Ramrao Bhamre.. PetitionerVersus1.The Election Commission of India,Through Chief Election Commissioner2.The Returning Officer, 4 Appln.EP35.2024Dhule Parliamentary Constituency (02),@ The Collector, Dhule, Dist. Dhule3.Smt. Shobha Dinesh Bacchav4.Shri Bharat Baburao Jadhav5.Zahor Ahamad Mohamad Yusuf (Jam Jam)6.Shri Sanjay Rameshwar Sharma7.Shafeeque Ahemad Md. Rafeeque8.Shri Namdeo Rohidas Yelave9.Shri Sachin Umaji Nikam10.Shri Raj Chavan11.Mohammad Ismail Jumman12.Shri Suresh Jagannath Brahmankar13.Shri Shivaji Nathu Patil14.Shaikh Mohammad Zaid Shamim Ahmed15.Mohammad Aameen Mohammad Faruque16.Muqeem Meena Nagri17.Irfan Mo. Ishak (Nadir)18.Shri Malay Prakash Patil19.Abdul Hafeez Abdul Haque.. Respondents...WITH...APPLICATION IN EP NO. 20 OF 2024 IN EP/2/2024DR. SHRI SUBHASH RAMRAO BHAMREVERSUS 5 Appln.EP35.2024THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND OTHERS...WITH...APPLICATION IN EP NO. 31 OF 2024 IN EP/2/2024...THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANOTHERVERSUSDR. SHRI SUBHASH RAMRAO BHAMRE AND OTHERS...CORAM:ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.DATE:13.06.2025Judgment:1.Heard Mr. Mukul Kulkarni along with Mr. Umesh G.Mitkari, learned counsel for the Election Petitioner, Mr. V. D.Salunke along with Mr. A. V. Deshmukh, learned counsel forRespondent No.3 in the Election Petition and Mr. Alok Sharma,learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission. 2.General Elections to the 18th Lok Sabha wasannounced on 16.03.2024 and Election / Voting to the DhuleParliamentary Constituency was held on 20.05.2024 andRespondent No.3 was declared elected on 04.06.2024. Theelection petitioner was one of the candidates in the electionwho had secured the second highest votes. The electedcandidates secured 5,83,866 votes while the election 6 Appln.EP35.2024petitioner secured 5,80,035 votes. The difference in votesbetween the two candidates is 3831 votes.3.The Dhule Parliamentary Constituency consistsof 6 assembly constituencies, which are Dhule (Rural), Dhule(City), Sindkheda, Malegaon (Central), Malegaon (Outer) andBaglan.In the Malegaon Central Constituency out of02,05,588 votes polled, respondent no.3 had secured 1,98,869votes, whereas the petitioner received only 4542 votes andnone of the other candidates could pass 100 vote mark.The Election Petition primarily focuses on thisAssembly Constituency (Malegaon Central Constituency) andhas filed Election Petition primarily contending that names oflarge number of dead persons are included in the electoral rollof this assembly constituency and votes are cast in the name ofthe dead persons and the same is received by Respondent No.3.It is also contended that there are multiple votes cast in thename of same persons in different booths in the said AssemblyConstituency as their names are reflected in the Electoral Rollat multiple places of the same assembly constituency. 7 Appln.EP35.2024THE GIST OF THE ELECTION PETITION:4.In the Election Petition, the relevant pleadings areas under:“A.The petitioner states and submits that oninquiries the Petitioner came to know fromAbhishek Rajgopal Rathi, Rajiya Akbar Shah,Subhash Jagannath Pachpute, Rajendra JagannathPachpute, Jayesh Dipak Sonagra, Umesh RameshBorwal, Ramesh Tukaram Chaudhari and ShitalRamchandra Pawar, who all are residents ofMalegaon and party workers associated with thePetitioner during the election and have noted thatvotes were polled in the name of persons who werealready dead and that these votes are polled infavour of Respondent No.3.B.The Petitioner states and submits that thePetitioner applied to the Malegaon MunicipalCorporation and sought details of the registermaintained under the Registration of Births andDeaths Act in Malegaon Central AssemblyConstituency. It is a matter of record that the saidconstituency consists of three Prabhags i.e.Prabhag No.2, 3 and 4 formed by the MunicipleCorporation. In response to the information soughtby the Petitioner, the Corporation has supplied thedata containing the register of death maintained inrespect of Prabhag No.2, 3 and 4 for the period of01.01.2016 to 31.05.2024, except for the period of2020 to 2021 for Prabhag No.4. As per the saidregister 17,767 persons have died during last 8years 5 months. It is pertinent to note that entiredata as solicited by Petitioner is not supplied to thePetitioner therefore the number stated above isminimum and bound to increase after thePetitioner received the entire data. 8 Appln.EP35.2024C.The Petitioner states and submits that whenthe Petitioner counter checked the entries in thesaid register supplied to Petitioner by MunicipalCorporation, with the final list of voters, it revealedthat as of now the final list of voters, it revealedthat as of now the final list of voters containsnames of 4,378 dead persons of Malegaon CentralAssembly Constituency despite the fact that theirdeaths are duly recorded in the register of deaths.D.The Petitioner states and submits that thePetitioner submitted application under the Right toInformation Act on 07.06.2024 soliciting thenomination papers, the CCTV footage and theregister of voters maintained under Rule 17-A onevery booth in Malegaon Central AssemblyConstituency and also the details of the calculationof votes on all those booths.E.The petitioner states and submits thatRespondent No.2 replied to the Petitioner on12.06.2024 and supplied the informationmentioned in clause 1 to 7. Respondent No.2however did not supply the register maintainedunder Rule 17-A and the calculation of votes onindividual booths on the ground that as per theElection Commission handbook the same cannot besupplied. F.The Petitioner states and submits thatRespondent No.2 once again took shelter of thehandbook of the Election Commission and refusedto supply the information vide communicationdated 29.06.2024.G.The Petitioner states and submits that thefurther scrutiny of the final voter list fromMalegaon Central Constituency revealed that the 9 Appln.EP35.2024names of voters are appearing on multipleoccasions in the same voter list. The Petitionercame to know on inquiries from Abhishek RajgopalRathi, Rajiya Akbar Shah, Subhash JagannathPachpute, Rajendra Jagannath Pachpute, JayeshDipak Sonagra, Umesh Ramesh Borwal, RameshTukaram Chaudhari and Shital Ramchandra Pawarthat these persons have cast their votes at morethan one places using different serial number indifferent wards in favour of Respondent No.3.The Petitioner has prepared a computerizedchart of all those persons whose names areappearing in the final list of voters at more thanone place. The Petitioner has furnished the serialnumber, page number and ward number whereinsuch names are repeated. This chart is appended tothe present Election Petition and the same may betreated as part and parcel of the present ElectionPetition. As per the chart prepared by thePetitioner, the persons who have voted in multipleoccasions are 3329 in numbers.H.The Petitioner states and submits that theresult of the election of Dhule ParliamentaryConstituency is materially affected since there isdiscrepancy in the number of votes polled and thenumber of votes counted and also due to the factthat 4,378 votes polled in the name of deadpersons. In addition to this the multiple voting by3329 persons names in the chart referred abovealso has an effect of materially altering the resultsof the election. As large number of votes have beencast in the name of dead persons and that too infavour of the present Respondent No.3, it hasaffected sanctity and purity of election. Thenumber of votes polled illegally at MalegaonCentral Assembly constituency would 10 Appln.EP35.2024unequivocally demonstrate that Respondent No.3is the only beneficiary of all such votes.I.The Petitioner states and submits thatRespondent No.3 is elected by margin of 3,831votes. This margin includes 4,378 votes polled inthe name of dead persons in favour of RespondentNo.3. In addition to this there are 3329 entries ofpersons enrolled in the final list of voters atmultiple places which have gone in favour ofRespondent No.3. These illegally tendered votes, ifare excluded from the votes received byRespondent No.3 then the total votes secured byher will be less than the total votes secured by thePetitioner. In further addition to this the votesunaccounted for are taken into consideration thenit is clear that the Petitioner is the recipient ofhighest number of legitimate votes in theParliamentary constituency and hence is entitledto be declared as a returned candidate. TheRespondent No.3 is the only beneficiary of allillegally tendered votes and hence all the votesshould be excluded from the votes received by her.J.The Petitioner states and submits that thecause of action for filing the present ElectionPetition arose on 04.06.2024 when the result ofDhule Parliamentary Constituency (02) wasdeclared by present Respondent No.2. The cause ofaction further arose when the copy of the deathregister maintained by Malegaon MunicipalCorporation received by the Petitioner and then itwas noticed that the names of dead persons wereincluded in the final list of voters.”Application for dismissal of Election Petition Application in Election Petition No.35 of 2024[Exhibit-16] 11 Appln.EP35.20245.On notice being issued, Respondent No.3 appearedand filed an application for rejection of the Election Petitionunder Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure read withSections 81, 82 and 86 of the Representation of People Act,1951.6.The Respondent No.3 has sought dismissal of theElection Petition on the following grounds:A.That the petitioner has alleged corruptpractice in the original Election Petition. However,along with the original Election Petition, thepetitioner has not filed an affidavit in form no. 25,which is a mandatory requirement under Section83(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951(for brevity referred to as the “said Act”.Therefore, for the above referred non-compliance ofa mandatory requirement, the original ElectionPetition is liable to be dismissed at it’s threshold.B.The original election petition has been filedbased on following baseless and bald allegations;[I]Respondent No.3 in her affidavit filed alongwith the nomination form has allegedly notdisclosed registration of Crime No.0283 of 2019at the Niphad Police Station under Sections 409and 406 of the Penal Code. 12 Appln.EP35.2024[II]In Malegaon Central Assembleconstituency, some ladies in Burkha whose namesallegedly did not feature in the list of voters, haveallegedly cast their votes in favour of RespondentNo.3.[III]About 4378 votes in the name of deadpersons have been allegedly polled in favour ofRespondent No.3.[IV]Names of about 4378 dead personsremained in the list of voters allegedly at thebehest of Respondent No.3.[V]About 1998 legally tender votes haveallegedly not been counted.[VI]Above 3329 persons have allegedly casttheir votes on more than one occasion only tobenefit Respondent No.3.C.The petitioner has challenged the election inissue do not fall within the purview of Sections 100and 101 of the said Act and, therefore, on thisground alone the original election petition is liableto be dismissed in limine.D.The pleadings in original election petition arenot the averments of material facts but are basedupon speculation and, hence, do not disclose any 13 Appln.EP35.2024triable issue. The original election petition do notdisclose as complete cause of action.E.The original election petition does not discloseany source of information to allege that the ladieswearing Burkha have cast their votes, even thoughtheir names did not feature in the list of voters.Further, the original election petition also does notdisclose the basis to allege that the ladies wearingBurkha, whose names did not feature in list ofvoters, have voted to increase the vote share ofRespondent No.3. The original election petition alsodoes not refer to any such incident to show thatladies wearing Burkha have votes even thoughtheir names did not feature in the list of voters.Therefore, such a baseless and bald allegation doesnot disclose any cause of action to set aside electionof a democratically elected candidate i.e.Respondent No.3.F.The Election Petition does not refer to anybasis to allege that about 4378 votes have beenpolled in the name of dead persons and, that too, infavour of Respondent No.3. The petitioner has notdisclosed any source of information for alleging that4378 votes have been polled in the name of deadpersons. The original election petition does notdisclose a single instance, where a vote has beenpolled in the name of a dead person. The said 14 Appln.EP35.2024allegation is nothing but just a speculation basedupon incomplete and distorted contentions.G.The allegation of the petitioner that about1998 legally cast votes have not been counted ismerely based upon statement of votes polledpublished on 21.05.2024 and election resultpublished on 04.06.2024. There is no basis and orsource of information disclosed in the originalElection Petition to contend that 1998 votes havenot been counted. Moreover, without admitting,even if the aforesaid allegation that about 1998votes have not been counted is taken at it’s facevalue, still the same will not materially affect theresult of election in issue as Respondent No.3 hasbeen declared elected by margin of about 3831votes.H.The original election petition does not disclosethe source of information from where the electionagent of petitioner received information that votesfrom about 6 Electric Voting Machines have notbeen counted.I.The original Election Petition does notdisclose basis and / or source of information toallege that about 3329 persons have voted at morethan one place by using more than one serialnumber. The petitioner has merely referred to thenames of his supporters to allege that the petitioner 15 Appln.EP35.2024has received information from his said supportersabout multiple voting by 3329 persons. However,the petitioner has not disclosed the source ofinformation from where his so called supportersbecame aware of multiple voting.J.Respondent No.3 submits that by merelystating that the result of election in question hasbeen ‘materially affected’ is not sufficient to satisfythe mandatory requirement under Section 100(1)(d) of the said Act. The Election Petition shouldclearly make out as to how the result of election hasbeen materially affected by the alleged acts and /or omissions. Therefore, the original ElectionPetition suffers from several patent defects and,hence, the same is liable to be rejected.K.The election petition cannot be based uponmere conjectures and surmises, riding on a chanceto prove the allegations based on record maintainedby the Returning Officer. The election petitionshould disclose a complete cause of action basedupon all relevant material facts.L.The allegations in the original electionpetition about many Burkha clad women voting infavour of Respondent No.3, votes polled in the nameof dead persons to increase vote share ofRespondent No.3 and multiple voting by samepersons in favour of Respondent No.3 is not only 16 Appln.EP35.2024baseless, but also illegal as the same breaches thefabric of secrecy of voting. Therefore, on thisground alone the original election petition is liableto be dismissed with exemplary costs.M.The original election petition does not containconcise statements of all the material facts and isalso bereft of full particulars of so called corruptpractices alleged by the petitioner againstrespondent No.3.N.The petitioner has not signed and verified theoriginal election petition as is required by theprovisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Thepetitioner has verified the pleadings and annexuresof the original election petition as if the same arewithin his personal knowledge. However, petitionerhas not given the source of information on whichhis pleadings and annexures are based. Moreover,petitioner has relied upon incidents of corruptpractice, which are witnessed by informants ofpetitioner that forms sole basis of original electionpetition. However, the petitioner has verified saidannexures as well as pleadings based thereupon asif the facts mentioned therein are withinpetitioner’s own personal knowledge. Hence, thepetitioner has erred by verifying the pleadingsbased thereupon as if the same are withinpetitioner’s own personal knowledge. The form ofaffidavit submitted in support of original election 17 Appln.EP35.2024petition is not in accordance with the Conduct ofElection Rules, 1961.O.Respondent No.3 states that in order tochallenge the election of 1st Respondent who hasreceived public mandate by a democratic process,the petitioner should have taken extra care andshould not have left any room for doubt whilemaking allegations. The petitioner should havecome forward with a definite plea, which shouldhave been supported by legally acceptable materialevidence without an iota of doubt. Hence, thepetitioner by making vague, baseless and frivolousallegations has unnecessarily dragged respondentno.3 to this Court.P.The original election petition is supportedeither by a primary document or reliable source ofinformation. The pleadings in original electionpetition are not the averments of material facts butare facts based upon speculation and, hence, do notdisclose any triable issue. The original electionpetition do not disclose a complete cause of action.Q.Subject to correction, Respondent No.3 statesthat this Court has framed Rules with respect toconduct of Election Petitions filed under the saidAct. Rule 4 of the High Court Rules provides forterritorial jurisdiction of High Court benches to tryelection petitions. 18 Appln.EP35.2024R.Respondent No.3 states that even thoughjudicial district of Dhule is attached to the Hon’bleAurangabad Bench of this Hon’ble Court forappellate and criminal matters, however, it can beseen that Rule 4 of the High Court Rules withrespect to conduct of Election Petitions has notbeen suitably amended to include Judicial Districtof Dhule within the jurisdictional limits of theHon’ble Aurangabad Bench of this Hon’ble Court.Therefore, as per Rule 4 of the High Court Rulesdealing with Election Petitions, as they stand today,the Hon’ble Aurangabad Bench of this Hon’bleCourt may not have territorial jurisdiction to trythe original election petition.Reply of the Original Election Petitioner to the Applicationunder Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC read with Sections 81, 82 and 86and other provisions of the Representation of the People Act:7.In the election petition there is no allegation of anycorrupt practice and, hence, there is no need and requirementto file the affidavit in Form No.25.8.In paragraph no.8 of the application, the applicanthas tried to summaries the challenges raised in the electionpetition. It is, however, pertinent to note that the saidchallenges do not cover all the grounds raised in the electionpetition. 19 Appln.EP35.20249.The learned counsel for the election petitionersubmits that the Election Commission and the ReturningOfficer have filed an application at Exhibit 13 [Election / CivilApplication No.31 of 2024 in Election Petition No.2 of 2024],wherein for the first time the election commission has broughton record that 2028 legally tendered votes are not at allcounted. If these figures are added to the total number of votespolled and votes counted then the difference is more than thevictory margin of the present applicant – respondent no.3 inthe election petition. 10.The learned counsel for the election petitionersubmits that the allegations made in the election petition areon the basis of official documents prepared and supplied by theElection Commission itself. In respect of other allegations,foundation is laid in the pleading and the evidence part will bea matter of trial.11.The election petitioner submits that in the electionpetition it is pointed out on the basis of the final list of votersand the entries taken in birth and death registers by thecompetent authority that names of dead persons continued inthe final list of voters. The petitioner has placed on record a 20 Appln.EP35.2024detailed chart containing details of all such instances and thenumber quoted in the petition is as per the said chart.12.The election petitioner submits that in respect of1998 illegal multi casting of votes, again the petitioner hasfurnished the details of all such persons in the chart annexedto the petition which again is not disputed by the applicant –respondents no.3.13.The election petitioner submits that an applicationat Exhibit-5 is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to theelection commission to supply the details contained in Registerof Voters under Rule 17-A and 17-C along with CCTV footage.The application was necessitated since the election commissionand the returning officer had refused to supply the same to thepetitioner vide communications dated 12.06.2024 and29.06.2024. In view of this, it will be a matter of trial whereinit could be tested as to whether the petitioner could prove hiscase or not.14.The election petitioner submits that it is a matter ofrecord that affidavit and verification is filed along with theelection petition disclosing the source of information. Even in 21 Appln.EP35.2024the present application, it is stated in paragraph no.15 thatnames of supporters are furnished as the persons who suppliedthe information to the petitioner. Thus, the source ofinformation and details of the said source are specificallypleaded and, hence, there is no defect in the election petition.15.The election petition has to be read as a whole forarriving at a conclusion that uncontroverted contentions ofthe petitioner constitute material pleadings seeking trial of theelection petition. The present application does not state thatthe entire petition does not contend the grounds. As a matterof fact some of the grounds are summarized by the applicantherself and, hence, it is apparent that the election petition doesnot suffer from any defect of lack of any material particular.16.The election petitioner submits that as per allegeddefect in verification, it is specifically denied that there is anydefect in verification of the petition or the annexures. Theentire application does not point out any specific instance ofdefective verification. In absence of specific and pin pointedobjection there is no substance in the said contention of theapplicant. Moreover, in case, there is any defect in verification, 22 Appln.EP35.2024the same is a curable defect and the election petition cannot bedismissed for the same.17.The election petitioner submits that the objectionbased upon Rule 4 of the High Court Rules is not sustainable asthe said Rules will not override Section 80, 80-A and 81 of theRepresentation of People Act, which provides that the electionpetition has to be filed and tried by the High Court. Moreover,after filing of the present election petition, the same was placedbefore The Hon’ble The Chief Justice for assigning a Judge forhearing of the petition and, accordingly, the election petition isassigned to this Hon’ble Court. To the best of the knowledge ofthe answering respondent – election petitioner, the said orderis not assailed by the applicant herein and she has submittedto the jurisdiction of this Court by appearing through advocatewithout any protest. In view of this, no prejudice is caused toher in case the petition is tried and decided by this Court.18.The Notification of amendment dated 22.01.1996,issued under the States Reorganisation Act in the year 1996,when the territorial jurisdiction in respect of Dhule districtwas withdrawn from the Hon’ble Principal Seat at Bombay andconferred the same on this Hon’ble Bench. It is pertinent to 23 Appln.EP35.2024note that since this date the matters arising from Dhuledistrict are filed, entertained and decided by this Bench of theHigh Court.19.The election petitioner submits that, since, theaforesaid date, all the matters including the election petitionsarising out of Dhule district are presented, filed and tried bythis Hon’ble Court.20.The election petitioner submits that it is a matter ofrecord that this Bench was established in the year 1982 forcatering the needs of litigants from Marathwada area.Subsequently, in the year 1988, jurisdiction of Ahmednagarand Jalgaon district was transferred to the Aurangabad Benchfrom the Principal Seat at Bombay. It is only in the year 1996,when the jurisdiction of Dhule district is transferred to theAurangabad Bench. 21.The election petitioner submits that the applicant(Original Respondent No.3) in the election petition has notraised any dispute about the territorial jurisdiction of thisBench to entertain and decide the present election petition onmerits. The objection of the applicant is only in respect of 24 Appln.EP35.2024presentation of election petition before this Bench. Theapplicant herein has relied upon Rule 4 of the Rules framed forthe purposes of Representation of Peoples Act for challengingthe presentation of the election petition.22.The election petitioner submits that it is a matter ofrecord that Sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 provides for presentation ofelection petition from the rest of the areas of Maharashtra andother Union Territories to the Principal Seat at Bombayprovided the matters therein lies to the Principal Seat. Thus,an election petition can be presented before the Prothonotaryif the matter from the said area lies to the Principal Seat. In thepresent case it is not the case of the present applicant thatmatters from Dhule district lie to the Principal seat and, hence,there is no question of presenting the election petition to theProthonotary at Bombay.23.The election petitioner submits that evenotherwise, presentation of a proceedings is always before theRegistrar / Section Officer of the court having territorialjurisdiction to try and decide the proceedings. In the presentcase, admittedly the jurisdiction to try the present electionpetition is with this Bench and, accordingly, this court is 25 Appln.EP35.2024assigned with the same under the order of The Hon’ble theChief Justice. In this view of the matter, in absence of anyprejudice to the respondents and, also, in absence of any officerspecifically assigned for receiving the election petition fromDhule district, there is no merit in hyper technical objectionraised by the applicant herein. 24.The Counter affidavit is also filed by the respondentno.3 i.e. the applicant in Application No.35 of 2024 (Exhibit-16) to the additional affidavit in reply filed by respondentno.1 / Original Petitioner.JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN ELECTION PETITION:25.Having considered the rival pleadings andsubmissions advanced by the learned counsel for respectiveparties, the preliminary legal issue that arises forconsideration is, whether the election petition is correctlypresented before the Aurangabad Bench of High Court ofBombay and, if not, whether the petition becomes liable fordismissal ?26.The relevant statutory provisions relating to thepresentation of the Election Petition are noted below:- 26 Appln.EP35.2024Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act,1951 deals with the presentation of the election petition andprovides that an election petition shall be presented to theHigh Court, and reads as under:“REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 Section 81 - Presentation of petitions(1) An election petition calling in question any election may bepresented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of section 100 and section 101 to the High Court by anycandidate at such election or any elector within forty-five daysfrom, but not earlier than the date of election of the returnedcandidate or if there are more than one returned candidate at theelection and dates of their election are different, the later of thosetwo dates.Explanation.-In this sub-section, "elector" means a person who wasentitled to vote at the election to which the election petitionrelates, whether he has voted at such election or not.(2)***(3) ...”Section 80A of the Representation of the People Actdeals with the jurisdiction of the High Court to try an electionpetition, which read as under:“REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 Section 80A - High Court to try election petitions(1) The Court having jurisdiction to try an election petition shall bethe High Court.(2) ...(3) ...”The word “High Court” means that the High Courtwithin the local limits of whose jurisdiction the election to 27 Appln.EP35.2024which the election petition relates has been held. Section 79(e)of the RP Act reads as under:“79(e) “High Court” means the High Court within the local limits ofwhose jurisdiction the election to which the election petitionrelates has been held;”27.It is also to be noted that in exercise of powersunder Section 51(2) of The States Reorganisation Act, 1956,the President by order / notification dated 26.06.1984established the permanent bench at Aurangabad, as under:“1.Short title and commencement.- (1) This Order may be called the High Court of Bombay(Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Aurangabad)Order, 1984.(2)It shall come into force on the 27th day of August,1984.2.Establishment of a Permanent Bench of the Bombay HighCourt at Aurangabad.- There shall be established a permanentbench of the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad and such Judgesof the High Court of Bombay, being not less than four in number, asthe Chief Justice of that High Court may, from time to time,nominate, shall sit at Aurangabad in order to exercise thejurisdiction and power for the time being vested in that High Courtin respect of cases arising in the districts of Aurangabad, Beed,Jalna, Latur, Nanded, Osmanabad and Parbhani:Provided that the Chief Justice of that High Court may, inhis discretion, order that any case or any class of cases arising inany such district shall be heard at Bombay.”28.Thereafter by order / notification dated 22.01.1996the President in exercise of powers under Section 51(2) of TheStates Reorganisation Act, 1956 included districts of Beed andDhule into the jurisdiction of the permanent bench atAurangabad {District Beed is also mentioned in the OriginalOrder dated 26.06.1984}, as under: 28 Appln.EP35.2024“...(1)This Order may be called the High Court of Bombay(Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Aurangabad) AmendmentOrder, 1996.(2) It shall come into force on the 26th day of January, 1996.2.In paragraph 2 of the High Court of Bombay (Establishmentof a Permanent Bench at Aurangabad) Order, 1984, the word“Beed”, the word “Dhule”, shall be inserted.”29.The Rules Framed By The High Court Of JudicatureAt Bombay In regard to Election Petitions Under TheRepresentation of The People Act, 1951 (for brevity “HighCourt Presentation of Election Petition Rules”) provides forpresentation of an election petition and the relevant Clause 4,reads as under:“4.Election Petitions arising from areas constituting JudicialDistricts of Akola, Amravati, Bhandara, Buldhana, Chandrapur,Gadchiroli, Nagpur, Wardha and Yeotmal shall be presented eitherin person or by an Advocate duly authorised in that behalf by theparty concerned to the Additional Registrar of the Nagpur Benchor to such other officer as the said Additional Registrar may, bygeneral or special order issued from time to time, appoint in thisbehalf.Election Petitions arising from the areas constitutingJudicial District of Aurangabad, Beed, Jalana, Latur, Nanded,Osmanabad and Parbhani shall be presented either in person or byan Advocate duly authorised in that behalf by the party concernedto the Additional Registrar of the Aurangabad Bench or to suchother officer order issued from time to time, appoint in this behalf.Election Petitions arising in the State of Goa which lie in theHigh Court at Bombay shall be presented either in person or by anAdvocate duly authorised in that behalf by the concerned to theSpecial Officer of the Panaji Bench, Goa, or to such other Officer asthe Special Officer may, by general or special order issued fromtime to time, appoint in this behalf.Election Petitions arising from the rest of the areas of theState of Maharashtra or arsing in the residuary Union Territory ofDaman and Diu, and the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveliwhich lie to the High Court of Bombay shall be presented to theProthonotary and Senior Master, High Court, Bombay, or suchother Officer as the Prothonotary and Senior Master may, by 29 Appln.EP35.2024special or general orders passed from time to time appoint in thisbehalf.”30.Considering the provisions noted above, it is to benoticed that the permanent bench at Auragnabad wasestablished on 26.06.1984 and, thereafter, Dhule district wasincluded in the jurisdiction of the Aurangabad Bench,on 22.01.1996. Considering the aforesaid legal provision, it isapparent that after inclusion of district Dhule in thejurisdiction of Aurangbad Bench, the cases arising from Dhuledistrict are to be presented before the Aurangabad Bench ofthe High Court of Bombay. However, as regards the High CourtRules for Presentation of Election Petition is concerned, thereis no corresponding amendment to include the filing of theElection Petition from ‘Dhule’ judicial district before theAurangabad Bench of the High Court of Bombay.As regards the High Court Presentation of ElectionPetition Rules are concerned, Rule 4 of the High CourtPresentation of Election Petition Rules do not included Dhuleas one of the judicial districts from where the Election Petitionis to be filed before the Aurangabad Bench. The residual clauseof Rule 4 of the High Court Presentation of Election PetitionRules provides for filling the Election Petition for rest of theMaharashtra before the Principal Seat at Bombay and Election 30 Appln.EP35.2024Petition needs to be presented before the Prothonotary andSenior Master, High Court, Bombay.31.The question is, whether the present ElectionPetition arises out of a cause of action that has accrued inDhule district and, whether such petition is correctlypresented at the Aurangabad Bench or, whether in terms ofresidual clause of Rule 4 of the High Court Presentation ofElection Petition Rules, the Election Petition for DhuleParliamentary Constituency has to be presented only beforethe High Court of Bombay at the Principal Seat.32.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State ofMaharashtra Vs. Narayan Shamrao Puranik and others,CivilAppeal No.3379 of 1981, dated 25.10.1982, AIR 1983 SC 46:MANU/SC/0045/1982, has observed that conferment ofexclusive jurisdiction to such permanent Bench to hear casesarising in districts falling within its jurisdiction brings about aterritorial bifurcation of the High Court.33. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State ofMaharashtra Vs. Narayan Shamrao Puranik and others(supra), while considering the power of the Chief Justice to 31 Appln.EP35.2024establish benches vis-a-vis power of the President to establish apermanent bench, has observed at paragraph no.25 as under:“25. It is clear upon the terms of Section 51 of the Act thatundoubtedly the President has the power under Sub-section(1) to appoint the principal seat of the High Court for a newState. Likewise, the power of the President under Sub-section(2) thereof, after consultation with the Governor of a newState and the Chief Justice of the High Court for that State,pertains to the establishment of a permanent Bench orBenches of that High Court of a new State at one or moreplaces within the State other than the place where theprincipal seat of the High Court is located and for anymatters connected therewith clearly confer power on thePresident to define the territorial jurisdiction of thepermanent Bench in relation to the principal seat as also forthe conferment of exclusive jurisdiction to such permanentBench to hear cases arising in districts falling within itsjurisdiction. The creation of a permanent Bench under Sub-section (2) of Section 51 of the Act must therefore bringabout a territorial bifurcation of the High Court. Under Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2) of Section 51 of the Act thePresident has to act on the advice of the Council of Ministersas ordained by Article 74(1) of the Constitution. In both thematters the decision lies with the Central Government….”34.So also, the Division Bench of this Court in the caseof Prakash Kavathekar Vs. Bajrang Sonavane, Review Petition (St.) No.34389 of 2018 in Writ Petition No.13766 of 2018,dated 21.12.2018, has by relying upon the Judgment of theHon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Monet Ispat and EnergyLimited, 2013 10 SCC 574 observed that every Bench of theHigh Court should scrupulously follow the relevant rules andshould not violate statutory provisions specifying itsjurisdiction, else the sanctity of the rules relating to 32 Appln.EP35.2024distribution of cases between the Single, the Division Benchand larger Benches will be lost.35.This court in the case of Prakash Kavathekar Vs.Bajrang Sonavane (supra) has observed as under:“34.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Monnet Ispatand Energy Limited (supra) has held that every Bench of theHigh Court should scrupulously follow the relevant rules andshould not violate statutory provisions specifyig itsjurisdiction, elese the sanctity of the rules relating todistribution of cases between the Single, the Division Benchand larger Benches will be lost. In my view the principles oflaw laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case ofMonnet Ispat and Energy Limited (supra) would apply to thefacts of this case. Since the cause of action in this case hadarisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the AurangabadBench and Rule 2 of Chapter XXXI of the bombay High CourtAppellate Side Rules clearly provides that the writ petitionarising out of such district could be filed only before theAurangabad Bench, the Principal Bench cannot entertainsuch petition falling within the territorial jurisdiction of theAurangabad Bench unless the Hon’ble Chief Justiceexercises its discretionary power. This court cannot violatethe statutory provisions relating to distribution of casesbetween different Benches.”36.Similar issue was raised before this court i.e. theauthority of the Registrar of the benches of this court toadminister oath in Election Petition de-horse the Rules framedby the High Court for presentation of Election Petition. Thiscourt in the case of Bhagwan Rambhau Karankal Vs.Chandrakant B. Raghuwanshi and others, Election PetitionNo.2 of 1998, dated 07.04.2000, 2000 SCC OnLine Bom. 221, atparagraphs no.25 & 28, has observed as under: 33 Appln.EP35.2024“25.The question, however, that needs consideration is asto whether can this Rule 9 of the Bombay High CourtAppellate Side Rules be made applicable to the presentelection petition which has to be dealt with strictly inaccordance with the Rules framed by the High Court inregard to the election petitions under the Representation ofPeople Act, 1951 and in the absence of any provision thereinmaking aforesaid rule applicable to election petition,whether above Rule 9 can be stretched for application underthe Original Side Rules of the Bombay High Court.”...28.In view of this, it is clear that the officer authorised bythe High Court has to see that the affidavits are done as perthe rules before him. However, the question would be as towhether can these Appellate Side Rules be brought intooperation for the Original Side Rules. The election petitionbefore the High Court is said to be an Original-Side work andthe Judges at the Benches, who are dealing with the electionpetitions can be siad to be doing Original-Side work atBenches as those cases are specially assigned to thoseJudges. Generally, at the Benches of Aurangabad, Nagpurand Goa there is no Original-Side Bench except such speciallyassigned work of election petitions and that appears to bethe reasons as to why the name the Additional Registrar orany other officer in that behalf authorised by the High Courtdoes not appear in Rule 197 of the Original Side Rules. Thatdoes not mean that if such an affidavit is done before theAdditional Registrar of the High Court, that would be totallyillegal….”37.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of VijayLaxmi Sadho Vs. Jagdish, Appeal, (Civil) 2720 of 2000, dated05.01.2001, AIR 2001 SC 600 has held that the rulesformulated by the High Court under Article 225 of theConstitution of India are much of procedural in nature and therules are not substantive law in themselves and the rules shallapply so far as it is not inconsistent with the Representation ofthe People Act. 34 Appln.EP35.2024Thus, after the state reorganisation and inclusion ofDhule in the States Reorganisation Act all matters arising fromDhule are to be filed before the Aurangabad Bench unless theHon’ble The Chief Justice in it’s discretion after presenting thepetition may place the same before any other bench in exerciseof power under Section 51(3) of the States Reorganisation Act.38.AS regards the rules framed by the High Court fortrial of election petitions under Article 225 of the Constitutionof India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay LaxmiSadho Vs. Jagdish (supra), at paragraph no.14 and 18, hasobserved as under:“14.The Madhya Pradesh High Court has framed Rules fortrial of election petitions under Article 225 of theConstitution. Under Rule 9 thereof it is provided that theRules of the High Court shall apply, in so far as they are noinconsistent with the Representation of the People Act, 1951or the rules, if any, made thereunder or the Civil ProcedureCode in respect of all matters. The import of Rule 9 (supra)was considered in Prabhu Narayan Vs. A. K. Srivastava,(1975) 3 SCR 552 and this Court opined:“Moreover, it appears to us that the provisions of Rule9 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules regardingthe election petitions framed by the Madhya PradeshHigh Court by reference to Rule 7 of the MadhyaPradesh High Court Rules found in Chapter IIIregarding affidavits cannot be made use of for thispurpose. The former set of rules are made underArticle 225 of the Constitution and cannot make anysubstantive law and the rules themselves on a perusalof them would show that they relate merely toprocedural matters unlike rules made under Section122 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”(Emphasis supplied)” 35 Appln.EP35.202418.Rules framed by the High Court relating to trial ofelection petitions are only procedural in nature and do notconstitute “substantive law”. Those Rules have to be readalongwith other statutory provisions to appreciate theconsequences of noncompliance with the High Court Rules.Article 329(b) mandates that no election to either House ofParliament or to either House of the State Legislature can becalled in question except through an election petitionpresented to such authority and in such manner as isprovided for by or under any law made by the legislature.Section 81 of the Act deals with the presentation of anelection petition while Section 82 deals with parties to theelection petition and Section 83 with contents of such apetition.”39.In the instant case, the parliamentary elections areheld of Dhule constituency, which consists of six assemblyconstituency of which three Assembly Constituencies are ofNasik district from where the matters are filed before thePrincipal Seat. Although, some of the assembly constituenciesof Nasik district are included in the parliamentaryconstituency of Dhule, the Election Petition arising from thedistrict of Dhule after the Presidential Order of 1996 under theStates Reorganisation Act, 1956 will lie before the AurangabadBench of the High Court of Bombay notwithstanding that thereis no corresponding amendment made in the High Court Rulesfor presentation of election petition as the High Court rulesframed under Article 225 of the Constitution of India are onlyprocedural in nature and cannot override the substantial lawi.e. the States Reorganisation Act. The elections are conductedfrom Dhule of Dhule Parliamentary Constituency. The Election 36 Appln.EP35.2024Petition arises from Dhule Parliamentary Constituency, and,thus, after the inclusion of district Dhule in the PresidentialOrder of 1996 to the Aurangabad Bench, the Election Petitionis rightly presented before the Aurangabad Bench of HighCourt of Bombay.OBJECTION AS TO COUNTING OF VOTES:40.The Election Petitioner has stated that six EVMmachines were not counted. No further ground is raised thatnon-counting of the votes of 6 EVM machines have materiallyaffected the elections.Objection raised by the election petitioner to thecounting was rejected by the Niwadnuk Nirnay Adhikari,Dhule Matdar Sangh / Returning Officer by holding that thecouting was verified at 3 stages and that there is no technicalmistake found. Every vote made and counted are same andthat there is no mistake in the same.The election authority has filed an applicationExhibit-13 for release of the counting machines in which theyhave specifically stated “That in the present case as there wasthe non deletion of the mock data from the control unittherefore, the counting from the four EVM machine was not 37 Appln.EP35.2024done / required. The details of the those four machines are asunder:Sr. No.Assembly ConstituencyPolling Station No.Total Votes1.08-Shindkheda26 Parsole5902.145 Shindeda3773.115 – Malegaon outer40-Kankrale5874.239-A- MalegaonCamp474Total202841.The Election Commission has stated that votes ofthese machines are not included and the same does notmaterially affect the election.42.Prima faice, no case is made out for setting aside ofthe Election for the reason of non counting or irregularcounting. No such, specific ground with particulars is alsoraised in the Election Petition. OBJECTION AS TO ILLEGAL CASTING OF VOTES:43.The next issue that arises for consideration relatesto illegal casting of votes in the name of dead persons andmultiple casting of votes in the name of same person atdifferent booths and, whether the Election Petition is pleadedwith all material particulars on the issue of illegal casting ofvotes, so as to meet the requirement under Section 80(1) of 38 Appln.EP35.2024the Representation of the People Act or the Election Petitionneeds to be dismissed under Section 86 of the Representationof the People Act for non compliance of provision of Section 81of the Representation of the People Act.44.Primarily, the issue raised in the Election Petitionpertains to the illegal casting of votes, particularly, in theMalegaon Assembly Constituency i.e. casting of large numberof votes in the name of dead persons and multiple casting ofvotes in the name of same persons.45.The difference between the winning candidate andthe election petitioner is 3831 votes. The election petition hasalso stated that in the Malegaon Central Constituency out of02,05,588 votes polled respondent no.3 has secured 01,98,869votes and the petitioner has received only 4,542 votes whileother candidates could not pass even 100 votes mark in thesaid constituency.46.He has also stated that the final voters list containsat least 4378 dead persons from Malegaon Central AssemblyConstituency and the Death Register has shown the persons tobe dead and yet votes are cast in their names. 39 Appln.EP35.202447.The Election Petitioner has also stated that around3329 entries of persons enrolled in final voters list are atmultiple places in the Malegaon (Central) AssemblyConstituency and in all these places they have casted votes atmultiple places.48.The Election Petitioner has stated that anapplication at Exhibit-5 is filed by the petitioner seekingdirection to the election commission to supply the detailscontained in Register of Voters under Form 17-A and 17-Calong with CCTV footage. The application was necessitatedsince the election commission and the returning officer hadrefused to supply the same to the petitioner videcommunications dated 12.06.2024 and 29.06.2024. TheElection Petitioner has submitted that, on evidence beingproduced before this court, it will be a matter of trial and itcould be tested as to whether the petitioner could prove hiscase or not as regards the illegal casting of votes in largenumbers.49.Considering the pleading of the Election Petitionerit is to be noted that there is no prima-facie material to indicatethat votes are cast in the name of dead persons. The data is 40 Appln.EP35.2024asked from the Election Petitioner from the ElectionCommission i.e. Register maintained under Form 17-A and 17-Cof the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 with CCTV footage so asto verify, whether votes are cast in the name of dead personsand multiple votes are cast in the name of same persons atdifferent booths. There is no affidavit by polling agents thatthey have noticed votes being cast in the name of dead personsor that the polling agent had raised objection to the casting ofthe votes in the name of dead persons. It is also not stated thatthe polling agents have noticed casting of votes in the name ofdead persons, however, have not objected to the casting of thevotes in the name of dead persons as they were unaware of thedemise of the voter at the relevant time. The polling agentsseats with voters list in the polling station and are aware of thevoters casting votes. There is no material to show that votinghas taken place in the name of dead person. Thus there is anelement of speculation and inquiry by this court at theinstance of the Election petitioner. The Election Petitioner hasplaced on record the names of dead persons, whose namescontinues to be on the electoral roll, so also, has placed namesof voters at multiple places. However, there is no evidence thatvoting has taken place in the name of dead persons or that 41 Appln.EP35.2024voting has taken place at multiple places by the same voter.This data is called for from the Election Commission by theElection Petitioner and only after the data that may be madeavailable by the Election Commission further case of thePetitioner will either be substantiated or refuted. However, bymerely having names of dead persons on the electoral roll thiscourt will not presume that votes are cast in their names. Thepolling agents in the booth are aware of the votes cast bypersons and an affidavit of polling agents present in the pollingstation stating that votes are cast against the dead personswould at least indicate that voting has taken place against thename of dead persons.50.Rule 13 of The Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961provides for appointment of the polling agents, whereas Rule35 provides for identification of electors, wherein the presidingofficer when an elector enters the polling station, the presidingofficer or the polling officer authorised by him in this behalfshall check the elector’s name and other particulars with therelevant entry in the electoral roll and then call out the serialnumber, name and other particulars of the elector. Thereafter, the polling agent present may challenge ofidentity in terms of Rule 36. The polling agent may challenge 42 Appln.EP35.2024the identity of a person by first depositing a sum of two rupees.On such challenge being made by the polling agent, thepresiding officer has to follow a procedure and take decision ofpermitting the voter either to vote or reject the same.Rule 37 provides for safeguards againstimpersonation.51.Presently, there is no material before the court toindicate that large number of persons have cast votes againstthe names of dead persons so as to materially affect theelection and this court would not enter in to inquiry of thesame.52.The election petitioner has mentioned the names ofpersons, who are residents of Malegaon and party workersassociated with the Petitioner and has submitted that duringthe election they have noted that votes were polled in the nameof persons who were already dead and that these votes arepolled in favour of Respondent No.3. These pleadings are notsufficient to enter into inquiry as to, whether votes are cast inthe names of dead persons as these are bald assertions. Onlythe polling agents, who were present in the booth with theElectoral Roll and having knowledge of the casting of votes in 43 Appln.EP35.2024the names of dead persons can possibly make such anassertion.53.Thus, this court finds that the ground raised inSection 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Actis not substantiated by material particulars. This court wouldnot undertake an inquiry to ascertain, whether voting hasbeen cast in the name of dead persons or that there is multiplevoting in the name of same persons without supportingpleadings and material in the Election Petition.NON-FILING OF AFFIDAVIT IN FORM 25:54.The election petitioner has not raised ground ofcorrupt practice, as such, the requirement of an affidavit inForm 25 is not necessary. At para 7 of the Election Petition thePetitioner has narrated that Criminal Case i.e. Crime No.0283of 2019, registered against Respondent No.3 at Niphad PoliceStation under Sections 409, 406 read with Section 34 of theIndian Penal Code and the same is pending against theReturned Candidate (Respondent No.3). It is stated thatRespondent No.3 is aware of the crime registered against herbut has deliberately and intentionally suppressed it in heraffidavit. However, there is no pleading in the Election Petition 44 Appln.EP35.2024that non mention of the criminal case has resulted in undueinfluence on the voters and in turn constituted corruptpractice under Section 123 of the Representation of The PeopleAct. The Election Petitioner has also not contended that thiscase is covered within Section 100(1)(b) and / or 100(1)(d)(ii)read with Section 123 [Corrupt Practice] of the Representationof the People Act, rather a positive assertion is made before methat the Election Petitioner does not make out a case of‘Corrupt Practice’ and, as such, affidavit in Form 25 is not filed.The Election Petition is supported by a verification clause. TheHon’ble Supreme Court has held that non filing of affdiavt inForm No.25 is a curable defect {A. Manju Vs. Prajwal RevannaAlias Prajwal R and others, (2022) 3 SCC 269}. However, asthe ground of corrupt practice is not raised nor asserted beforeme, the Election Petition, thus, cannot proceed on this groundalso.55.In the election Petition, the pleadings have to beprecise, specific and unambiguous. If the allegations containedin Election Petition do not set out grounds as contemplated inSection 100 and do not conform to the requirement of Section81 and 83 of the Act, the Election Petition is liable to berejected Under Order VII, Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. 45 Appln.EP35.2024An omission of a single material fact leading to an incompletecause of action or omission to contain a concise statement ofmaterial facts on which the Election Petitioner relies forestablishing a cause of action, would entail rejection of ElectionPetition Under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 83 and 87of the Representation of the People Act.56.Therefore, the Application in Election PetitionNo.35 of 2024 (Exhibit-16) is allowed and, consequently,Election Petition No.2 of 2024 stands dismissed.57.All pending applications also stand dismissed. [ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]marathe