Election petition lacking concise statement of material facts is liable for rejection for non-disclosure of cause of action.

The Petitioner, a runner-up in the 2024 Maharashtra Legislative Assembly elections from the 129-Vikramgad (S.T.) constituency, challenged the election of the Respondent No. 1 (the returned candidate).

The Respondent No. 1 won by a margin of 41,408 votes.

The Petitioner sought to declare the election void on three primary grounds: (i) the improper acceptance of the Respondent's nomination form due to the omission of "Note-1 to Note-5" (disclaimers) in the Affidavit in Form-26; (ii) the exercise of undue influence over the Returning Officer (RO); and (iii) the Respondent’s alleged disqualification for being a "Government Servant" (Headmaster of an aided school) in violation of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979.

The Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking summary dismissal of the petition for failing to state material facts or disclose a cause of action.

Section 83(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which mandates that an election petition must contain a concise statement of "material facts".

Section 100(1)(d)(iv) regarding the voiding of elections for non-compliance with the Constitution or Act.

Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC to test the disclosure of a cause of action.

The Supreme Court precedents of Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar and Karim Uddin Barbhuiya v. Aminul Haque Laskar, which established that the omission of even a single material fact results in an incomplete cause of action, necessitating summary dismissal.

Section 36(4) of the RP Act was applied, stipulating that a nomination shall not be rejected for defects that are not of a "substantial character".

The court found that the Petitioner’s pleadings were vague, generic, and bereft of material particulars.

Regarding the missing "Notes" in Form-26, the court observed that these forms are statutory documents provided by the RO, not created by the candidate; thus, any omission in the pre-printed format cannot be attributed to the candidate as a "corrupt practice".

Furthermore, such an omission did not constitute a defect of a substantial character under Section 36(4).

On the issue of "undue influence," the court held the allegations lacked the specific details (names, dates, places) required by Section 83.

Concerning the Respondent's employment, the court found he was governed by the Ashram Shala Sanhita 2019, not the Civil Services Rules, and had obtained valid prior permission from the management to contest, which the Petitioner had suppressed.

The court concluded that since the Petitioner failed to plead how the alleged irregularities "materially affected" the result (especially given the large victory margin), no triable issue existed.

The court held that strict compliance with Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act is mandatory, and the failure to provide a concise statement of material facts meant the petition disclosed no cause of action.

The court further directed the District Election Officer to release the 358 Ballot Units and 358 Control Units held in custody.

No costs were awarded.