The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a petition challenging the election of BJP MLA Prem Pal Singh Dhangar from the Tundla constituency in Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh. The Court stated that the petition lacked disclosure of material facts, making it legally unsustainable.
The bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal heard the case and found that the petitioner failed to disclose essential material facts at the time of filing the election petition. As per the Representation of the People Act, 1951, this omission is a fatal defect that renders the petition invalid.
“Order VII Rule 11(a) clearly provides for rejection of a plaint in case of non-disclosure of cause of action,” the Court noted.
The petitioner had argued that the Tundla Assembly seat is reserved for Scheduled Castes (SC), and since Prem Pal Singh Dhangar belongs to the Gaderia/Pal/Baghel community, recognized as OBC in Uttar Pradesh, his candidacy was void from the beginning.
However, the Court emphasized that no sufficient material facts were provided in the original petition to support this claim. An amendment application was later filed, but it was rejected because it did not specify the changes being sought.
Read Also:- Kerala High Court Welcomes Kochi’s Flood-Free Monsoon, But Stresses Continued Action Against Future Risks
A second amendment application was also filed, but respondent No. 1 (Prem Pal Singh Dhangar) opposed it, arguing that it changed the nature of the original petition and introduced new material facts, which are not allowed after filing under the Representation of the People Act.
"Material facts are the foundation of the petition. Their absence makes the entire case unsustainable,” the Court observed.
The Court also clarified the difference between 'material facts' and 'material particulars', explaining that material facts must be disclosed initially. Particulars can be supplemented later but not the facts that form the basis of the case.
Read Also:- Working in a 'society' under Article 12 does not make one a government employee: Supreme Court
During the proceedings, Advocate Virendra Singh, appearing for the petitioner, argued that no new facts were being added and that these were already part of the grounds. But Advocate A.P. Tewari, representing the respondent, emphasized that without disclosing material facts from the beginning, the petition lacked legal merit.
The Court referred to Section 83(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, which mandates that election petitions must contain a concise statement of material facts. It also cited Section 86(1), which provides for dismissal of a petition that does not comply with the Act’s provisions.
Read Also:- J&K High Court: Medical Evidence Alone Can’t Prove Rape Without Direct Link To Accused
The Court concluded that the amendment application introduced a new case, which is impermissible under law. It also affirmed that non-disclosure of material facts is an incurable defect, thereby rejecting the entire election petition.
"Since non-disclosure of material facts leads to an incomplete cause of action, the petition becomes bad in law and liable to be dismissed,” the bench stated.
The Court allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC, moved by the respondent, and dismissed the petition filed against the election of BJP’s Prem Pal Singh Dhangar.
Case Title: Prem Pal Singh vs. Prem Pal Singh Dhangar And 12 Others
