Holding

The election petition lacked the requisite material facts and failed to comply with Section 83(1)(a), rendering it void and subject to dismissal.

Summary

The appellant, a returned candidate, challenged the High Court's order that upheld an election petition filed by the respondent alleging corrupt practices. The petition claimed the appellant had constructed bore wells and provided ambulances after the election notification, allegedly exceeding the permissible election expenditure. The Supreme Court examined whether the petition complied with Section 83(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which requires a concise statement of material facts, and whether the alleged amenities constituted bribery under Section 123. It held that the petition failed to plead essential material facts such as the appellant's consent, knowledge, and the effect of the alleged facilities on voters, and also omitted the mandatory Form 25 affidavit. Consequently, the petition did not disclose a cause of action and was liable to be dismissed under the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal was allowed and the election petition dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the election petition complied with the mandatory requirement of stating material facts under Section 83(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Whether the provision of bore wells and ambulances constitutes a corrupt practice or bribery under Section 123 of the Act.
Whether the absence of a Form 25 affidavit under Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, renders the petition non‑maintainable.
Whether the petition can be dismissed summarily under CPC Order 6 Rule 16 and Order 7 Rule 11 for lack of a cause of action.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 6 Rule 16, s. Order 7 Rule 11
Conduct of Election Rules, 1961s. Rule 94A
Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 100, s. 123, s. 77, s. 83, s. 86

Subjects

election petitionmaterial factscorrupt practiceRepresentation of the People ActSection 83Section 123electoral briberyCode of Civil Proceduresummary dismissalbore wellsambulances

Judgment

[2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 10

A ANIL VASUDEV SALGAONKAR
v.
NARESH KUSHALI SHIGAONKAR
(Civil Appeal No. 5679 of 2009)
,.
AUGUST 20, 2009
B
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, Jj,J

Representation of the People Act, 1951: +
c Sections 77, 83, 100, 123 - Election - Election to
Legislative Assembly - Election Petition challenging the
election of the returned candidate - Allegation of corrupt
practice - ·Election Petition allowed by the High Court - On
..
/
appeal, Held: All those facts which are essential to clothe the
election petitioner with a complete cause of action are material ..,
D
facts which must be pleaded and failure to place even a single ....
material fact amounts to disobedience of the mandate of
Section 83(1)(a) - On facts the election petition read as a
whose does not disclose any cause of action - Conduct of
Election Rules, 1961 - Rule 94A ·-Code of Civil Procedure,
E 1908, Order 6 Rule 113i Order 7 Rule 11(a).

. Words & Phrases: .f

t-
"Material facts" - Meaning of in the context of
F Representation of the People Act, 1951.

The appellant was the returned candidate from a
legislative ·constituency, having secured 10705 votes out
of the total 19657 votes polled. Respondent who had
secured only 275 votes filed an election petition
G challenging the election of appellant on the grounds that
in seven villages in his constitue_l'_lcy the appellant got 13
bore wells constructed at his own cost; and also provided
ambulances to five villages and for the abovesaid alleged
corrupt practices the appellant had incurred expenditure
H 10

~
ANIL VASUDEV SALGAONKAR v. NARESH KUSHALI 11
SHIGAONKAR
,.
crossing the limit of Rs.5,00,000/- prescribed under the A
}-
Act and the Rules, and that these were done after
issuance of election Notification. The High Court
concluded that the election petition read as a whole
disclosed material facts and allowed the election petition .
. Hence the appeal. B
Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. There are no averments to the effect
whether such bore holes were dug with the consent andJ
or active knowledge of the appellant. The estimates of c
cost involved supplied in the election petition are also
limited to the cost of drilling the bore holes and not of
installing the water drawing plant and machinery in them
,.. to draw water from the bore holes. As such, the said

.. pleading is totally general and vague in nature: [Para 10)
[19-A-B]
D

1.2. There are absolutely no averments with regard
to which villagers or electors had used such ambulances
and for whose benefit such ambulances were deploye~
E
so as to constitute 'bribe' to the voters and that to an
extent that would have influenced the outcome of the
election. It is stated that any company operating mines
on large scale with heavy machinery is under a statutory
duty to maintain safety at the mines and is, as such,
statutorily required to provide required facilities including F
deployment of ambulances in adequate numbers at
various mines to ensure safety of the persons workin~
at these mines. The various mines of Salgaoncar Mining
Industries... are spread over large areas falling in the
constituency. The petition is absolutely devoid of any G
averment with regard to such ambulances being
specifically deployed for the benefit of any elector in the
constituency much less a number of electors who would
have benefited from such service even if not admitted but
proved to be true that could have influenced the election H
12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A so as to change its outcome. [Paras 12. and 13] [19-F-H;
"
-f
20-A-B]

1.3. The respondent has failed to give particulars
regarding parking of the ambulances i.e. where the~e
ambulances were parked; in which villages they were
B
parked; whether there was any driver to drive the said
ambulances and as to where they were parked. Similarly,
. the respondent failed to give particulars regarding the
bore wells whose cost as alleged amounts to Rs.6,38,557/ +
-. Similarly, expenditure_ of Rs.12,50,000/- has been alleged
c to have been made for the ·purchase of ambulances. The
particulars have not been provided. It is not clear as to
how the respondent has come to the figure of ,-.
Rs.5,00,000/- which according to him has been spent by
the appell~nt. He did not give any particulars regarding y
D either of the bore wells or the ambulances. [Para 20] [22-
8-D] '

1.4. In tha impugned judgment, the High Court
erroneously concluded that the election petition when
E read as a whole discloses that it has material facts stated
and regarding which ti i<ai.Jie issues are also framed and,
therefore, it cannot be rejected at the preliminary stage. ...
[Para 24] [23-F]

Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 (Supp) SCC 315
F and H.D. ~evanna v. G. Puttaswamy Gowda & Others (1999)
2 sec 217, relied on.

2.1. The position is well settled that an election
petition can be summarily dismissed if it does not fµrnish
G the cause of action in exercise of the power under the
Code of Civil Procedure. Appropriate orders in exercise y
of powers under the Code can be passed if the
mandatory requirements enjoined by Section 83 of the
Act to incorporate the material facts in the election petition
H are not complied with. [Para 52] [33-E-F]
ANIL VASUDEV SALGAONKAR v. NARESH KUSHALI 13
SHIGAONKAR
"' 2.2. It is settled legal position that all "material facts" A
must be pleaded by the party in support of the case set
up by him within the period of limitation. Since the object
and purpose is to enable the opposite party to know the
case he has to meet with, in the absence of pleading, a
party cannot be allowed to lead evidence. Failure to state B
even a single material fact will entail dismissal of the
+ election petition. [Para 62] [37 -CJ

2.3. The election petition must contain a concise
statement of "material facts" on which the petitioner
relies. There is no definition of "material facts" either in c
the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 nor in the Code
of Civil Procedure. In a series of judgments, this court has
'>(
laid down that all facts necessary to formulate a complete ·
Ii-
cause of action should be termed as "material facts". All
basic and primary facts which must be proved by a party D
to establish the existence of cause of action or defence
are material facts. "Material facts" in other words mean
the entire bundle of facts which would constitute a•
complete cause of action. [Para 63] [37-D-F]
E
... ' 2.4. In the context of a charge of corrupt practice,
"material facts" would mean all basic facts constituting
the ingredients of the particular corrupt practice alleged, ,
which the petitioner is bound to substantiate before he
can succeed on that charge. It is also well-settled that if
F
"material facts" are missing they cannot be supplied after
expiry of period of limitation for filing the election petition
and the pleading becomes deficient. [Para 65] [38-D]

2.5. According to the appellant, in the election
petition, there was no averment whether the bore wells G
were dug with the consent and/or active knowledge of
the appellant. This averment was absolutely imperative 1

and the failure to mention such an important averment in
the petition is fatal for the election-petitioner and the
H
14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
--!
'
A election petition is liable to be summarily dismissed on ,_
that ground. [Para 66) [38-E-F] ,,

2.6. The legal position has been crystallized by a
series of judgments of this Court that all those facts
which are essential to clothe the election petitioner with
B
a complete cause of action are "material facts" which
must be pleaded, and the failure to place even a single +
material fact amounts to disobedience of the mandate of
section 83(1)(a) of the Ac;t. [Para 67) [38-G-H]

c 2.7. In the instant case, the election petition lacks the
materials facts. The election petition read as a whole does
not disclose any cause of action. Considering the facts .. ,·l

and circumstances of this case and principles applicable y

to the election petition, this appeal deserves to be
D allowed. [Para 68) [39-A-B]
Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 (Supp) SCC 315;
Hardwari Lal v. Kanwa/ Singh (1972)1 SCC 214; Udhav
Singh v. Madhav Rao Scindia (1977) 1 sec 511; v.
Narayanaswamy v. C.P. Thirunavukkarasu (2000) 2 SCC
E 294; LR. Shivaramagowda & Others v. T.M. Chandrashekar
1
(dead) by LRs & Others (1999) 1 SCC 666; Harmohinder
Singh Pradhan v. Ranjeet Singh Talwandi & Others (2005) 5
SCC 46; Harkirat Singh v. Amrinder Singh (2005) 13 SCC
511 and Sudarsha Avasthi v. Shiv Pal Singh (2008) 7 SCC
F 604, relied on.

H.D. Revanna v. G. Puttaswamy Gowda & Others (1999)
2 SCC 217; Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi
(1987) Supp. SCC 93; Manubhai Nandlal Amorsey v.
)'
G Popat/a/ Manila/ Joshi & Others (1969) 1 SCC 372 and
Samant N. Balkrishna & Another v. George Fernandez &
Others (1969) 3 SCC 238, referred to.

Phillips v. Phillips, (1878) 4 QBD 127: 48 LJ QB 135

H
ANIL VASUDEV SALGAONKAR v. NARESH KUSHALI 15
.. SHIGAONKAR
and Bruce v. Odhams Press Ltd. (1936) 1 KB 697: (1936) 1 A
All ER 287 (CA), referred to.

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn.), Vol. 36, para 38,
referred to.
Case Law Reference: B
+ 1986 (Supp) sec 315 relied on Para 10
(1999) 2 sec 211 relied on Para 10
(1987) Supp. sec 93 referred to Para 25 c
' ~
(1878) 4 QBD 127:
48 LJ QB 135
(1936) 1 KB 697:
referred to Para 43

(1936) 1 All ER 287 (CA) referred to Para 44 D

(1969) 1 sec 372 referred to Para 47
(1969) 3 sec 238 referred to Para 48
(1972)1 sec 214 relied on Para 49 E
~"

(1977) 1 sec 511 relied on Para 54
.(

c2000) 2 sec 294 relied on Para 55
(1999) 1 sec 666 relied on
• (2005) 5 sec 46 relied on
Para 56
Para 59
F

c2005) 13 sec 511 relied on Para 60
c2008) 1 sec 604 relied on Para 61
~
G
CIVIL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
5679 of 2009.
-,
From the Judgment & Order dated 4.7.2008 of the High

H
16 SUPREMECOURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A Court of Judicature at Bombay at Panaji-Goa, in Election
Application No. 5 of 2007 in Election Petition No. 1 of 2007.

Raju Ramachandran, Nikhil Majithia, Pragati Neekhra for
the Appellant.
B Ranjit Kumar, Prashant Shukla, Aabhas Parimal (for Binu
Tamta) for the Respondent. +
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. Leave granted.
c
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
of the High Court of Bombay Bench at Goa passed in Election
Application No.5 of 2007 in Election Petition No.1 of 2007 on 'f'

4th July, 2008.
D
3. The respondent herein has filed an election petition in
the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging the election of
the appellant (respondent no.1 in the election petition) to Goa
Legislative Assembly from 35 Sanvordem Assembly
Constituency. In the assembly elections held on 2nd June, 2007,
E
the appellant secured overwhelming mandate from the +
electorates securing 10705 votes out of total 19657 votes
polled whereas, his nearest rival (respondent no.2 in the
election petition) set up by the Bharatiya Janata Party secured
only 3782 votes and the respondent (election petitioner) polled
F only 275 votes and forfeited his deposits. In the election petition
before the High Court, a prayer has been made to declare the
election of the appellant herein as null and void on ground of
corrupt practices 'in which the appellant indulged during the
elections. The allegations in the petition are as under: y
G
(i) The returned candidate with an intent to secure the
votes of the voters of his constituency got 13 bore
wells constructed
/,, at his own cost in the seven
villages of the\ said constituency;
H
ANIL VASUDEV SALGAONKAR v. NARESH KUSHALI 17
~
SHIGAONKAR [DAL'(EER BHANDARI, J.]
lo. (ii) The returned candidate had also provided A
ambulances to the villages namely Collem,
Sanvordem, Mollem, Dharbandora and Khirpal
Dabhal as a part of his action in luring voters to vote
in his favour.
B
4. It has also been alleged that the appellant indulged in
the abovementioned corrupt practices and incurred election
r expenditure in contravention of section 77 of the Representation
of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")
thereby crossing the limit of Rs.5,00,000/- prescribed under the
Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
c
5. The written statement to the election petition was filed
by the appellant in the High Court. The allegations mentioned
--...- in the election petition were specifically refuted and denied in
the written statement. Apart from number of preliminary 0
objections, it was stated by the appellant that the election
petition does not comply with the provisions of Chapter II of the
Act and is, therefore, required to be dismissed at the threshold.

6. The appellant also stated in the written statement that E
the election petition does not contain a concise statement of
+ the material facts on which the respondent relies and, therefore,
the petition does not comply with clause (a) of sub-section (1)
'"
of section 83 of the Act. It was also incorporated in the written
statement that the election petition does not set forth the
F
material facts of the alleged corrupt practice. The respondent
herein has also failed to disclose the names of the parties
alleged to have committed the corrupt practice. Ir. the election
petition, the date and place of the commission of such alleged
corrupt practice has not been mentioned and. therefore, the I

election petition deserved to be dismissed as not maintainable. G
)--

7. In the written statement it was also stated that the
. appellant secured 10705 votes whereas the respondent
(election petitioner) got only 275 votes. The margin is too huge
to state that the candidate has been returned on account of . H
'i
i

18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
I

A some alleged corrupt practice. The respondent in the election. .4
"
\

petition is required to show that the candidate has been elected
and that the result of the election has been materially affected
by any alleged corrupt practice committed as such.

B 8. The allegations of alleged corrupt practices pleaded by
respondent (election petitioner) are limited to digging of 13
bore wells in villages falling under the constituency in question
after issuance of the election notification. The basis for this ,.
allegation is that the machinery allegedly used to dig bore holes
in the ground as mentioned in paragraph 16 of the election
c petition was the same machinery owned by a third party which
was hired in the past to work for the Salgaoncar Mining ;

Industries at Vagus valley. The respondent in paragraph 16 of
the election petition has also averred that the owner of the
y
Salgaoncar Mining Industries is the appellant herein and on this
D sole basis the conclusion is sought to be drawn and averment :
made to the effect that it is obvious that the cost of the said
wells and the other wells were borne by the returned candidate
through his business concern, namely, Salgaoncar Mining
•
Industries.
E
9. The pleadings of the said allegations of corrupt practice
are limited to digging of bore wells only and there is no pleading 1
on the material facts whether any water drawing equipment was i;

installed in the said bore holes so dug and that such bore holes
F became water bore wells and that the water could be drawn
from them. Neither any facts have been pleaded nor particulars
given to. the effect of how and in what manner the voters were
.
influenced in favour of the appellant so as to cast votes in his '
'

favour. No particulars of such voters have been given in the
G election petition. As such there is total absence of material
pleadings so as to prove that due to the alleged corrupt practice -'(
the election has been vitiated in a manner that but for such bore .._
.

holes not being dug the appellant would not have been returned
~
as a winning candidate and either respondent herein or
respondent no.2 of the election petition could have been
H
,,
>-
ANIL VASUDEV SALGAONKAR v. NARESH KUSHALI 19
SHIGAONKA~ [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.)

$<. returned as a winning candidate. A
10. There are no averments to the effect whether such bore
holes were dug with the consent and/or active knowledge of the
appellant. The estimates of cost involved supplied in the
election petition are also limited to the cost of drilling the bore
holes and not of installing the water drawing plant and 8
machinery in them to draw water from the bore holes. As such,
,.. the said pleading is totally general and vague in nature and is
entirely incapable of passing the muster of the test as laid in
the Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 (Supp) SCC 315 or
such facts as are pleaded in the petition are capable of being c
- later on amplified in view of the test laid down in H.O. Revanna
v. G. Puttaswamy Gowda & Others (1999) 2 SCC 217 so as
to arrive at a conclusion that a triable case is made out.
~
11. The second allegation of the alleged corrupt practice D
is to the effect that the appellant herein has, in the name of his
mining company viz. Mis Salgaoncar Mining Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Vagus, Palem, Bicholim, Goa, bought 5 Maruti Ambulances
from M/s Sai Service Station Ltd., Verna, Salcete, Goa by
incurring a cost of Rs.2,50,000/- for each of the ambulances E
and the cost of the 5 ambulances approximately would be a
_.. sum of Rs.12,50,000/- and once the said elections were
declared and he filed his nomination for the said election,
caused the said company to put the said ambulances at the
disposal of the villagers of the said villages.
F
12. There are absolutely no averments with regard to which
villagers or electors had used such ambulances and for whose
benefit such ambulances were deployed so as to constitute
'bribe' to the voters and that to an extent that would have
influenced the outcome of the election. It is stated that any G
't company operating mines on large scale with heavy machinery
is under a statutory duty to maintain safety at the mines and is,
as such, statutorily required to provide required facilities
including deployment of ambulances in adequate numbers at
various mines to ensure safety of the persons working at these H
20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A mines. The·various mines of Salgaoncar Mining Industries are
spread over large areas falling in the constituency.

13. The petition is absolutely devoid of any averment with
regard to such ambulances being specifically deployed for the
benefit of any elector in the constituency much less a number
B
of electors who would have benefited from such service even
if not admitted but proved to be true that could have influenced
i'-
the election so as to change its outcome.

14. There are absolutely no averments to the effect that
c these ambulances were deployed at which specific place, at
which specific time and for the benefit of whom and whether at
the instance or with knowledge of the appellant. As such, the
said pleading is incapable of passing the test as laid in the
~
Azhar Hussain's case (supra) or such facts as are pleaded in
D the petition are capable of being later on amplified in view of
the test laid down in H.D. Revanna's case (supra) so as to
arrive at a conclusion that a triable case is made out.

15. The third allegation pertains to the election expenses
incurred by the appellant on the basis that amount spent on
E
digging of bores holes as well as the cost of 5 ambulances
deployed for discharge of statutory requirements for carrying
out mining operations by a company ought to be calculated
towards the election expenses incurred by the appellant and,
as such, devoid of any merit in view of the insufficiency of
F pleadings in terms of 'material facts' with respect to the two
main allegations of corrupt· practices relating to digging of
borewells and 5 ambulances.

16. The High Court has totally misdirected itself by
G misconstruing the ratio laid down in a catena of decision
p~onounced by this Court including the law laid down in Azhar
Hussain's case (supra) and H.D. Revanna's case (supra)
which if properly applied to the facts and circumstances of the
present case would lead to rejection of the election petition in
H limine.
ANIL VASUDEV SALGAONKAR v. NARESH KUSHALI 21
SHIGAONKAR [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
._ 17. The other important questions of law of general A
importance involved in the present petition require adjudication
by this Court are whether amenities or facilities provided in
general and not in particular to a candidate or his agent or by
any other person with the consent of the candidate, is a corrupt
practice or a bribery or a gratification within the meaning of B
section 100(1)(b) read with section 123(1) of the Act. Whether
the absence of the prescribed affidavit in Form 25 as required
-r under Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and in
terms of proviso to section 83 of the Act is fatal to the
maintainability of an. election petition on the ground of corrupt C

- practices?

18. In the election petition the respondent has mentioned
that. there was scarcity of water supply in certain villages.
However, the respondent has failed to mention the numbers of
houses which face such alleged water scarcity. In the written D
statement, the appellant also alleged that the respondent in the
election petition has also failed to mention about water
availability of these villages; the respondent has further failed
to mention as to since when has there been water scarcityJ.
E
19. The appellant in the written statement further alleged
that the respondent has also not mentioned as to how many
houses are there in these villages; how many persons are living
in each of the houses; and how many persons are voters in
these villages. The respondent has also not mentioned as to F
how many villages have water connections; and when and
,where the water scarcity had been noticed in these villages. He
has also not mentioned as to when this complete breakdown
or insufficient water supply had occasioned to these villages
nor has he mentioned the date, time, place or any other details G
of such breakdown and has generally failed to give the details
as required under section 83 of the Act.

20. In the written statement it was also stated that the
drilling machines allegedly owned by Tejaswini Bore Wells
which were being operated at Ambeudok. There is, therefore, H
22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
_.
A no concrete evidence that the boreholes drilled were bore wells
to establish the flow of water from the ground table to surface
ground. Similarly, the respondent has miserably failed to give
particulars as to which villages did not have ambulances and
what was the number of voters in the said villages .. The
8 respondent has failed to give particulars regarding parking of
the ambulances i.e. where these ambulances were parked; in
which villages they were parked; whether there was any driver 1'
to drive the said ambulances and as to where they were parked.
Similarly, the respondent failed to give particulars regarding the
bore wells whose cost as alleged amounts to Rs.6,38,557/-.
c Similarly, expenditure of Rs.12,50,000/- has been alleged to
have been made for the purchase of ambulances. The
particulars have not been provided. It is not clear as to how the
respondent has come to the figure of Rs.5,00,000/- which
according to him has been spent by the appellant. He did not
D give any particulars ·regarding either of the bore wells or the
ambulances.

21. 'The appellant denied crossing the limit of Rs.5,00,000/
- as prescribed under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
E It is also alleged that the appellant did not construct any bore
wells nor did he provide any ambulances to the villagers and, +-
therefore, the question of showing the same in the election
expenses did not· arise at all. The appellant denied that an
amount of Rs.6;38,557/- and an amount of Rs.12,50,000/- as
F alleged has been the expenditure factually incurred by the
appellant and denied having committed any corrupt practice.
The question of the election results being materially affected
does not arise at all and, therefore, the election petition is liable
to be dismissed.
G 22. It was specifically argued that the election petition is
liable to be dismissed because there has been non compliance
of section 83( 1) of the Act because there was no sufficiency
and adequacy of pleadings in the election petition. Section
83(1) of the Act reads as under:
H
'
ANIL VASUDEV SALGAONKAR v. NARESH KUSHALI 23
SHIGAONKAR [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
,)..
83. Contents of petition.-(1) An election petition- A
(a) shall contain a concise statement of the material
facts on which the petitioner relies;

(b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice
that the petitioner alleges including as full a B
statement as possible of the names of the parties
alleged to have committed such corrupt practice
and the date and place of the commission of each
such practice; and
c
(c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the
manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (5 of 1908) for the verification of pleadings:
--...
Provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt
practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an
D
affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation
of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof.,,,,

23. According to the appellant, the High Court had
erroneously held that the election petition is not liable to be E
dismissed in limine under section 86 of the Act for alleged non-
compliance of the provisions of section 83(1) of the Act.

·24. In the impugned judgment, the High Court erroneously
concluded that the election petition when read as a whole
-. F
discloses that it has material facts stated and regarding which
triable issues are also framed and, therefore, it cannot be
rejected at the preliminary stage.

25. The High Court in the impugned judgment has
discussed the decision of this Court in Dhartipakar Madan Lal G
Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi (1987) Supp. SCC 93. According to
the appellant, the High Court erroneously distinguished this
case. The impugned judgment of the High Court is neither in
consonance with the provisions of the Act nor according to the
settled legal position as has been crystallized in a number of H
24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

~.
A cases by this court.

26. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the
appellant has preferred this appeal.

27. In ~,his election petition, respondent no.1 has challenged
B appellant's election primarily on the ground of corrupt practices,
alleging that the appellant dug bore wells in the constituency
and provided ambulances after the election notification was -y

issued in order to lure the voters from the constituency or induce
them to vote for the appellant. According to the appellant, the
c aforesaid allegations do not even on their face value constitute
corrupt practices within the meaning of Section 100 or section
123 of the Act. The Act postulates or contemplates bribery to
mean any gift, offer or promise by a candidate of any
gratification with the object, directly or indirectly of inducing any er-
D elector in order to make him vote for him.

28. For reference, section 100 and section 123 of the 1951
Act read as under:-

"Section 100 - Grounds for declaring election to be void
E - (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the
High court is of opinion-

(a) that on the-date of his election a returned candidate
was not qualified, or was disqualified, to be chosen to fill
F the seat under the Constitution or this Act or the
·'
Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20 of 1963);
or

(b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a
returned candidate or his election agent or by any other
G
person with the consent of returned candidate or his
election agent; or

(c) that any nomination has been improperly rejected; or

H (d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a
ANIL VASUDEV SALGAONKAR v. NARESH 25
. KUSHALI SHIGAONKAR [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.)
returned candidate, has been materially affected- A

(i) by the improper acceptance or any nomination, or

(ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the
returned candidate by an agent other than his election
agent, or B

(iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any
vote or the reception of any vote which is void, or

(iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the
Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made
c
under this Act,

the High Court shall declare the election of the returned

... -+
candidate to be void.

(2) If in the opinion of [the High Court, a returned candidate
D

has been guilty by an agent other than his election agent,
of any corrupt practice but the High Court is satisfied-

(a) that no such corrupt practice was committed at the
election by the candidate or his election agent, and every E
-\· such corrupt practice was committed contrary to the
orders, and [without the consent], of the candidate or his
"'""""
election agent;

(b) omitted F
(c) that the candidate and his election agent took all
reasonable means for preventing the commission of
corrupt practices at the election; and

(d) that in all other respects the election was free from any G
;
I
corrupt practice on the part of the candidate or any of his
"?"
agents,

• ,then the High Court may decide that the election of the
re~urned candidate is not void". H
I

26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A "Section 123 - Corrupt practices - The following shall be
deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this
Act:-

(1) "Bribery" that is to say-
B (A) any gift offer or promise by a candidate or his agent or
by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his
election agent of any gratification, to any person
whomsoever, with the objects, directly or indirectly of
inducing-
c
(a) a person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or
not to withdraw from being a candidate at an election, or

(b) an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election,
or as a reward to-
D
(i) a person for having so stood or not stood, or for having
withdrawn or not having withdrawn his candidature; or

(ii) an elector for having voted or refrained from voting;
E
(8) the receipt of, or agreement to receive, any gratification,
whether as a motive or a reward- ~

•
(a) by a person for standing or not standing as, or for
[withdrawing or not withdrawing] from being, a candidate;
F or

(b) by any person whomsoever for himself or any other
person for voting or refraining from voting, or inducing or
attempting to induce any elector to vote or refrain from
voting, or any candidate to withdraw or not to withdraw his
G
candidature."

29. The appellant submitted that corrupt practices pleaded
"....
by respondent no.1 are limited to digging of 13 bore wells in
villages falling under the constituency in question after
..
H notification of holding of election was issued. The basis for this
"-, ANIL VASUDEV SALGAONKAR v. NARESH 27
KUSHALI SHIGAONKAR [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
.,,
allegation that the machinery allegedly used to dig bore holes A
in the ground as provided in paragraph 16 of the election
petition and the same machinery owned by a third party which
was hired in the past to work for the Salgaoncar Mining
Industries at Vagus Valley.
B
30. Respondent no.1 in paragraph 16 of the election
petition has alleged that owner of the Salgaoncar Mining
Industries is the appellant herein and on this basis the·
conclusion is sought to be drawn and the averments made to·
the effect that "it is obvious that the cost of the said wells and
the other wells were borne by the returned candidate through
c
his business concern, namely Salgaoncar Mining Industries".

31. According to the appellant, the pleadings in the election

- -I_
petition regarding corrupt practice are li11Jited to digging of bore
wells only and there is no pleading on the material facts whether D
and in what manner the voters of the constituency were ·
influenced to vote in favour of the appellant-There is no
pleadings on the material facts whether any water drawing
equipment was installed in the said bore holes so dug and that
such bore holes became water bore wells and that the water E
~. could be drawn from them.

32. The appellant submitted that there is total absence of
material pleadings so as to prove that due to the alleged· corrupt
practice the election has been vitiated in a manner that such
bore holes not being dug by the appellant who has been F
returned as a winning candidate and either respondent no.2 or
respondent no.1 could have been returned as a winning
candidate.

33. The material fact whether such bore holes were dug G
with the consent and/or active knowledge of the appellant is
totally missing.

34. The material fact regarding the estimates of costs
involved is missing and is limited to the costs of drilling the bore
H

',,
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
. 4

A holes and not qt installing the water drawing plant and ~

machinery in them to draw water from the bore holes.
According to the appellant, the said pleading is totally general
and vague in nature.

35. The second allegation is regarding the alleged corrupt
B
practice by purchasing 5 Maruti Ambulances in the name of his
mining company viz. M/s Salgaoncar Mining Industries Pvt.Ltd .

. 36. According to the appellant, there are no material facts
in the pleading of the election petition that for whose benefit
c such ambulances were deployed so as to constitute a 'bribe'
to the voters and that to an extent that would have influenced
the outcome of the election.

37. The appellant also submitted that there are no r
averments with regard to such ambulances being specifically
D ......
deployed for the benefit of any elector in the constituency.

38. The appellant submitted that any company operating
mines on large scale with heavy machinery is under an
obligatory duty to maintain safety of the mines and is, as such,
E statutorily required to j;"liOVide required facilities including
deployment of ambulances in adequate numbers at various /.-
mines to ensure safety of the persons working in the mines.
The various mines of Salgaoncar Mining Industries are spread
over large areas falling in the constituency.
F
39. According to the appellant there is no material fact in
the pleading of the election petition to the effect regarding the
deployment of such ambulances at which specific places at
which specific time and for the benefit of whom and whether
G that was done at the behest and influence of the appellant.
-1·
40. According to the appellant, the third allegation pertains
to the election expem~es incurred by the appellant on the basis

H
of that amount spent on digging of bore holes as well as the
cost of 5 ambulances deployed for discharge for statutory
requirement for carrying out mining operations by a company
-
r
-...
-
ANIL VASUDEV SALGAONKAR v. NARESH KUSHALI 29
SHIGAONKAR [DAL\~EER BHANDARI, J.]
)..
ought to be calculated towards the election expenses incurred A
by the appellant is devoid of any merit in view of the
insufficiency of pleadings in terms of 'material facts' with respedt
to the two main allegations of corrupt practices relating to
digging of bore holes and purchase of 5 ambulances.
8
41. According to the appellant, the High Court in the
impugned judgment has totally misdirected itself by
misconstruing the ratio laid down in a catena of cases
pronounced by this Court. The other material questions of
general importance arising in the petition for determination by
this court are whether amenities or facilities provided in general
c
and not in particular by a candidate or his agent or by any other
person with the consent of the candidate, is a corrupt practice

- -t
or a bribery or a gratification within the meaning of section 100
(1)(b) read with section 123 (1) of the 1951 Act. According to
the appellant, the re~pondent did not furnish affidavit in Form D
25 as required under Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election
Rules, 1961 and in terms of proviso to Section 83 of the Act,
is fatal to the maintainability of an election petition on the ground
of corrupt practices.
E
42. According to the appellant, the respondent failed to
~.
plead the fact which constitutes an offence under section 100
of the Act and the appeal deserves to be allowed and the
election petition deserves to be dismissed.

43. The short question which falls for adjudication in this
F
case is whether the election petition is liable to be dismissed
because of lack of material facts. This controversy is no long
res integra. More than a century ago, in Phillips v. Phillips,
(1878) 4 QBD 127: 48 LJ QB 135, Cotton, L.J. stated:
)-
G
"What particulars are to be stated must depend on the
facts of each case. But in my opinion it is absolutely
essential that the pleading, not to be embarrassing to the
-4 defendants, should state those facts which will put the

..
defendants on their guard and tell them what they have to H

t-
30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A meet when the case comes on for trial."

44. In Bruce v. Odhams Press Ltd. (1936) 1 KB 697:
(1936) 1 All ER 287 (CA), Scott, L.J. referring to Phillips' case
(supra) observed:
B "The cardinal provision in Rule 4 is that the statement of
claim must state the material facts. The word 'material'
means necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete
+
cause of action; and if any one 'material' statement is
omitted, the statement of claim is bad; it is 'demurrable'
c in the old phraseology, and in the new is liable to be 'struck
out' under R.S.C. Order 25 Rule 4 (see Phillips v. Phillips);
or 'a further and better statement of claim' may be ordered
under Rule 7."
1-

D 45. In Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn.), Vol. 36, para
Ji
38, it has been stated:

"38. The function of particulars is to carry into
operation the overriding principle that the litigation between
the parties, and particularly the trial, should be conducted
E fairly, openly and without surprises, and incidentally to
reduce costs. This function has been variously stated, Jt.-
namely, either to limit the generality of the allegations in
the pleadings, or to define the issues which have to be
tried and for which discovery is required. Each party is
F entitled to know the case that is intended to be made
against him at the trial, and to have such particulars of his
opponent's case as will prevent him from being taken by
surprise. Particulars enable the other party to decide what
evidence he ought to be prepared with and to prepare for
G the trial. A party is bound by the facts included in the
particulars, and he may not rely on any other facts at the -J
'
trial without obtaining the leave of the court."

46. When we revert to the Indian cases, we find that our
courts have accepted the principle laid down by the English
H
ANIL VASUDEV SALGAONKAR v. NARESH KUSHALI 31
SHIGAONKA~ [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

)-_ cases. We would like to refer to some of them. A

47. In Manubhai Nand/al Amorsey v. Popat/al Manila/
Joshi & Others (1969) 1 SCC 372, this Court observed as
under:

"5. The first question is whether the trial judge should have B
allowed the amendment. Section 83(1)(b) provides that
"An election petition shall set forth full particulars of any
+
corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, including as full
a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged
to have commit such corrupt practice and the date and c
place of the commission of each such practice". The
section is mandatory ................. "

...\
48. In Samant N. Balkrishna & Another v. George
Fernandez & Others (1969) 3 SCC 238, this Court observed D
as under:

"37. From our examination of all the cases that
were cited before us we are satisfied that an
election petition must set out a ground or charge.
In other words, the kind of corrupt practice which E
was perpetrated together with material facts on
~
which a charge can be made out must be stated. It
is obvious that merely repeating the words of the
statute does not amount to a proper statement of
facts and the section requires that material facts of F
........ corrupt practices must be stated. If the material
facts of the corrupt practice are stated more or
better particulars of the charge may be given later,
but where the material facts them-selves are
missing it is impossible to think that the charge has G
been made or can be later amplified. This is
tantamount to the making of a fresh petition."

49. In Hardwari Lal v. Kanwal Singh (1972)1 SCC 214, a
· three judge Bench of this Court observed as under:
H

'•
•
)--

32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1--

~
A "22 ............. The gravamen of the charge of corrupt
practice within the meaning of Section 123(7) of the Act
is obtaining or procuring or abetting or attemp.ting to t-

obtain or procure any assistance other than the giving of
vote. In the absence of any suggestion as to what that
B assistance was the election petition is lacking in the most
vital and essential material fact to furnish a cause of
action."
+
50. The question of materials facts in the election petition
was comprehensively dealt with by this Court in Azhar
c Hussain's case (supra). The court observed that it is not
disputed that the Code of Civil Procedure applies to the trial
of an election petition by virtue of section 87 of the
Representation of the People Act, 1950. Section 87(1) and
section 87(2) of the Act apply to the election petition. Section -----
D 87(1) of the Act reads as under:

"87. Procedure before the High Court - (1) Subject
>--
to the provisions of this Act and of any rules made
thereunder, every election petition shall be tried by the
E High Court, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the
procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure,
>---
1908 (5 of 1908) to the trial of the suits ;
·•
Provided that the High Court shall have the discretion
to refuse, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to examine
F any witness. or witnesses if it is of the opinion that the
evidence of such witness or witnesses is not material for
the decision of the petition or that the party tendering such
witness or witnesses is doing so on frivolous grounds or

G
with a view' .
to delay the proceedings.
-f
(2) xxx xxx -xxx''

51. In this view of the matter, the court trying the election
petition can act in exercise of the powers of the Code including
Order 6 Rule 16 and Order 7 Rule 11 (a) of the Code. These
H
ANIL VASUDEV SALGAONKAR v. NARESH 33
KUSHALI SHIGAONKAR [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

provisions are set out as under: A
"Order 6, Rule 16: Striking out pleadings.- The
court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be
struck out or amend any matter in any pleading-

(a) which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous B
or vexatious; or

(b) which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay
the fair trial of the suit; or

(c) which is otherwise an abuse of the proc,ess of the
a
court.

Order 7, Rule 11 (a): Rejection of plaint.- The plaint
shall be rejected in the following cases-
D
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx"
E
52. The position is well settled that an election petition can
be summarily dismissed if it does not furnish the cause of
action in exercise of the power under the Code of Civil
Procedure. Appropriate orders in exercise of powers under the
Code can be passed if the mandatory requirements enjoined F
by Section 83 of the Act to incorporate the material facts in the
election petition are not complied with.

53. This Court in Samant N. Balkrishna's case (supra) has
expressed itself in no uncertain terms that the omission of a
single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action G
and that an election petition without the material facts relating
to a corrupt practice is not an election petition at all.

H
34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADOL.) S.C.R.

A 54. In Udhav Singh v. Madhav Rao Scindia (1977) 1 SCC
511, the law has been enunciated that all the primary facts which
must be proved by a party to establish a cause of action or his
defence are material facts. In the context of a charge of corrupt
practice it would mean that the basic facts which constitute the
B ingredients of the particular corrupt practice alleged by the
. petitioner must be specified in order to succeed on the charge.
Whether in an election petition a particular fact is material or
not and as such required to be pleaded is dependent on the
•
nature of the charge levelled and the circumstances of the case~
c All the facts which are essential to clothe the petition with
complete cause of action must be pleaded and failure to plead
even a single material fact would amount to disobedience of
the mandate of Section 83(1)(a). An election petition therefore
can be and must be dismissed if it suffers from any such vice.
0 The first ground of challenge must therefore fail.
55. In V. Narayanaswamy v. C.P. Thirunavukkarasu
(2000) 2 SCC 294, this Court reiterated the legal position that
an election petition is liable to be dismissed if it lacks in material
facts.
E
56. In L.R. Shivaramagowda & Others v. T.M.
Chandrashekar (dead) by LRs & Others (1999) 1 SCC 666,
this Court again considered the importance of pleadings in an
election petition alleging corrupt practice falling within the scope
F of Section 123 of the Act and observed as under:

"11. This Court has repeatedly stressed the
importance of pleadings in an election petition and pointed
out the difference between "material facts" and "material
particulars". While the failure to plead material facts is fatal
G to the election petition and no amendment of the pleading
could be allowed to introduce such material facts after the
time-limit prescribed for filing the election petition, ·the
absence of material particulars can be cured at a later
stage by an appropriate amendment. ..... "
H
ANIL VASUDEV SALGAONKAR v. NARESH KUSHALI 35
SHIGAONKAR [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
~·
57. In Udhav Singh's case (supra), this Court observed as A
under:

"41. Like the Code of Civil Procedure, this section
also envisages a distinction between "material facts" and
"material particulars". Clause (a) of sub-section (1)
B
corresponds to Order 6, Rule 2, while clause (b) is
analogous to Order 6, Rules 4 and 6 of the Code. The
..:,- distinction between "material facts" and "material
particulars" is important because different consequences
may flow from a deficiency of such facts or particulars in
the pleading. Failure to plead even a single material fact c
'r.._ leads to an incomplete cause of action and incomplete
allegations of such a charge are liable to be stuck off under
Order 6, Rule 16, Code of Civil Procedure. If the petition
-- is based solely on those allegations which suffer from lack
of material facts, the petition is liable to be summarily D
rejected for want of cause of action. In the case of a
petition suffering from a deficiency of material particulars
the court has a discretion to allow the petitioner to supply
the required particulars even after the expiry of limitation."
E
58. In H.D. Revanna's case (supra), the appeal was filed
~
by the candidate who had succeeded in the election and whose
application for dismissal of the election petition in limine was
rejected by the High Court. This Court noticed that it has been
laid down by this Court that non-compliance with the provisions
F
of Section 83 may lead to dismissal of the petition if the matter
falls within the scope of Order 6 Rule 16 and Order 7 Rule 11
of the Code of Civil Procedure.

59. In Harmohinder Singh Pradhan v. Ranjeet Singh
Talwandi & Others (2005) 5 SCC 46, this Court observed thus: G
~

"14. Nec~ssary averment of facts constituting an
appeal on the ground of "his religion" to vote or to refrain
from voting would be material facts within the meaning of
t-1
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) $.C.R.

·~
A clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 83 of the Act. If
such material facts are missing, they cannot be supplied
later on, after the expiry of period of limitation for filing the
election petition and the plea being deficient, can be
directed to be struck down under Order 6 Rule 16 of the
B Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and if such plea be the sole
ground of filing an election petition, the petition itself can
be rejected as not disclosing a cause of action under
clause (a) of Rule 11 Order 7 of the Code." i-"

60. In Harkirat Singh v. Amrinder Singh (2005) 13 SCC
c 511, this Court again reiterated the distinction between
'material facts' and 'material particulars' and observed as _)
under:

"51. A distinction between "material facts" and .,,_

D "particulars", however, must not be overlooked. "Material
. facts" are primary or basic facts which must be pleaded
by the plaintiff or by the defendant in support of the case
set up by him either to prove his cause of action or
defence. ''.Particulars", on the other hand, are details in ·
E support of material facts pleaded by the party. They
amplify, refine and embellish material facts by giving
)-
distinctive touch to the basic contours of a picture already
drawn so as to make it full, more clear and more
informative. "Particulars" thus ensure conduct of fair trial
and would not take the opposite party by surprise.
F
52. All "material facts" must be pleadetf by the party
in support of the case set up by him. Since the object and
purpose is to enable the opposite party to know the case
he has to meet with, in the absence of pleading, a party
G cannot be allowed to lead evidence. Failure to state even
a single material fact, hence, will entail dismissal of the
suit or petition. Particulars, on the other hand, are the
details of the case which is in the nature of evidence a
party would be leading at the time of trial."
H
ANIL VASUDEV SALGAONKAR v. NARESH 37
KUSHALI SHIGAONKAR [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

~ 61. In Sudarsha Avasthi v. Shiv Pal Singh (2008) 7 SCC A
604, this Court observed as under:

"20. The election petition is a serious matter and it
cannot be treated lightly or in a fanciful manner nor is it
given to a person who uses this as a handle for vexatious B
purpose ............... n

4' 62. It is settled legal position that all "material facts" must
be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by him
within the period of limitation. Since the object and purpose is
to enable the opposite party to know the case he has to meet C
with, in the absence of pleading, a party cannot be allowed to
" lead evidence. Failure to state even a single material fact will
entail dismissal of the election petition.

63. The election petition must contain a concise statement D
of "material facts" on which the petitioner relies. There is no
definition of "material facts" either in the Representation of
Peoples Act, 1951 nor in the Code of Civil Procedure. In a
series of judgments, this court has laid down that all facts
necessary to formulate a complete cause of action should be E
termed as "material facts". All basic and primary facts which
must be proved by a party to establish the existence of cause
of action or defence are material facts. "Material facts" in other
words mean the entire bundle of facts which would constitute
a complete cause of action.
F
64. This court in Harkirat Singh's case (supra) tried to give
various meanings of "material facts". The relevant paragraph
48 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-

"The expression 'material facts' has neither been defined G
in the Act nor in the Code. According to the dictionary
meaning, 'material' means 'fundamental', 'vital', 'basic',
'cardinal', 'central', 'crucial', 'decisive', 'essential', 'pivotal',
indispensable', 'elementary' or 'primary'. [Burton's Legal
H
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A Thesaurus, (Third Edn.); p.349]. The phrase 'material --1
facts', therefore, may be said to be those facts upon which
a party relies for his claim or defence. In other words,
· · 'material facts' are facts upon which the plaintiffs cause
of action or the defendant's defence depends. What
B particulars could be said to be 'material facts' would
depend upon the facts of each case and no rule of
universal application can be laid down. ·It is, however,
absolutely essential that all basic and primary facts which
,.
must be proved at the trial by the party to establish the
c 9f
existence a cause of action or defence are material facts
and must be stated in the pleading by the party."
~
65. In the context of a charge of corrupt practice, "tnaterial
facts" would mean all basic facts constituting the ingredients
of the particular corrupt practice alleged, which the petitioner
,.
D (respondent herein) is bound to substantiate before he can
succeed on that charge. It is also well-settled that if "material
facts" are missing they cannot ·be supplied after expiry of period·
of limitation for filing the election petition and the pleading
becomes deficient.
E
66. According to the appellant, in the election petition, there
was no averment whether the bore wells were dug with the
consent and/or active knowledge of the appellant. This
averment was absolutely imperative and the failure to mention
F . such an important averment in the petition is fatal for ttie
election-petitioner (respondent herein) and the election petition
is liable to be summarily dismissed on that ground.

67. The legal position has been crystallized by a series of
the judgments of this Court that all those facts which are
G essential to clothe the election petitioner with a complete cause
of action are "material facts" which must be pleaded, and the
failure to place even a single material fact amounts to
disobedience of the mandate of section 83(1)(a) of the Act.

H
ANIL VASUDEV SALGAONKAR v. NARESH 39
KUSHALI SHIGAONKAR [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
68. When we apply the aforementioned test to the election A
petition in this case, then the conclusion becomes irresistible
that the election petition lacks the materials facts. The election
petition read as a whole does not disclose any cause of action.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and
principles applicable to the election petition, this appeal a
deserves to be allowed and we accordingly allow this appeal.
Consequently, the election petition stands dismissed.

69. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we direct
the parties to bear their own costs.
c
- G.N. Appeal allowed.