@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Om Prakash, J.@mdashThis is an election petition u/s 81 of the Representation of the People Act. 1951 the Act 1951). by the petitioner, who was a candidate in the general. elections to the U.P. Legislative Assembly, held in February-March. 1985. from 349 Nidhauli Kalan Assembly Constituency, district Etah. The last date for filing nomination papers was 6-2-1985 and the last date for withdrawal of nomination papers was 9-2-1985. The poll in the aforesaid constituency took place on 5-3-1985 and the respondent, who contested the election on Lok Dal symbol, was declared elected on 6th Man. 1985.
2. The prayer in the election petition is that the election of the respondent from the aforesaid constituency be declared void and be set aside on the ground that the result of the election, in so far as, it concerns the respondent was materially affected because of the non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution, of the Act. 1951. of the Conduct of Elections Rules. 1961 (the Rules 1961) and of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order. 1968 (the Order 1968).
3. The grounds for getting the election of the respondent declared void have been stated in paragraphs and the facts relating to those grounds have been stated in paras 8 to 43 in the petition. The petitioner filed his nomination papers declaring his intention that he would contest the election on Lok Dal symbol on 2nd Feb.. 1985. The last date for withdrawal was 9-2-1985. The respondent had filed authorisation in regard to Lok Dal symbol and he was allotted the said symbol. The case of the petitioner is that Chaudhry Charan Singh. President of the Lok Dal. "had issued a direction authorising the petitioner to file nomination as authorised candidate of aforesaid Lok Dal (D.M.K.P.) party from 349 Nidhauli Kalan Assembly Constituency" and the same was filed with the Election Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the commission'') at 2.55 p.m. on 9-2-1985 by the petitioner. It is stated in para 19 of the petition that the President of the Lok Dal "had also issued a letter addressed to the Returning Officer 349 Nidhauli Kalan Constituency in the district of Etah dt. 9-2-1985 stating therein that if any other candidate has submitted ''B'' form claiming to be our parties approved candidate the same be treated as cancelled and that the authorisation issued in favour of election petitioner Prem Pal Shastri be treated to be duly issued authorisation from the Lok Dal Party." It is stated that the Commission gave the assurance to the petitioner that a suitable direction would be issued to the Returning Officer by means of a telex message in that behalf. It is stated in para 31 that the petitioner also filed authorisation with the Returning Officer on 9-2-1985 at 8.40 p.m. In para 33. the averment is that the Commission by telex message dt. 16-2-1985 (Ext. P-6) informed the Chief Electoral Officer. U.P.. Lucknow. as well as the Returning Officer of the relevant constituency that the delay in submitting the revised form ''B'' was condoned and the Commission further directed that the petitioner be allotted the Lok Dal symbol in supersession of earlier authorisation. Such direction was given on 16-2-1985 subject to the condition that the ballot papers of the constituency "have not been printed". Thereafter the District Election Officer addressed a letter dt. 17-2-1985 (Ext. P-5) to the Government Printing Press. Allahabad, that further printing of the ballot papers be stopped. The Government Press. Allahabad informed that more than 50.000 ballot papers had been printed till the evening of 16-2-1985. On 18-2-1985. the Returning Officer had sent a radiogram (Ext, P-4) to the Commission reporting the compliance of the telex message (Ext. P-5 ) that Lok Dal symbol had been allotted to the petitioner, subject to the condition as stated in the telex message (Ext. P-6) and informing the Commission that more than 50,000 ballot papers had been printed according to the communication of the Government Press. Allahabad. In para 37. it is averred that the Commission by telex message dt. 18-2-1985 informed the Chief Electoral Officer and the concerned Returning Officer that "in view of the fact that large number of ballot papers have been printed, no change is required and the petitioner, viz.. Prem Pal Shastri will be deemed to be treated as independent candidate." In para 42. the petitioner pleaded that "the subsequent order of the Election Commission directing that in view of the fact that large number of ballot papers have already been printed and. therefore, the petitioner cannot be allotted the symbol of the Lok Dal (D.M.K.P) is wholly without jurisdiction, inasmuch as having once given the direction of condonation of delay in filing the authorisation certificate, it is not open to the Election Commission to review its earlier decision."
4. The respondent filed a written statement and denied that any authorisation from the President of Lok Dal party (sic) filed by the petitioner with the Commission on 9-2-1985. It is alleged that 9-2-1985 was the last date of withdrawal and on that date, the authorisation was there only in his favour and, therefore, the Lok Dal symbol was validly allotted to him by the Returning Officer. In para 64, it is pleaded that Para 13 of the Order 1968 does not permit the filing of any authorisation after 3 p.m. On the last date of withdrawal and that the authorisation is to be filed with the Returning Officer and with no one else. It is stated that there was no direction by the Commission in favour of the petitioner prior to 16-2-1985 and that the said direction of the Commission is illegal. It is also pleaded that in any case the direction was conditional and already a large number of ballot papers '' having been printed by 16-2-1985. the direction could not have been given effect to. In para 73. it is pleaded that the authorisation being illegal and ineffective, as the same was filed after 3 p.m. on 9-2-1985. the Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain and act upon the same. In para 76. the respondent alleged that condonation of delay in having submitted the authorisation of symbol by the petitioner was without jurisdiction.
5. On the above pleadings the following issues were struck :
1. Whether the revised authorisation of symbol in favour of the petitioner by the Lok Dal party was filed by the petitioner with the Election Commission before 3 p.m. on 9-2-1985? If so. its effect".
2. Whether filing of revised authorisation with the Election Commission is valid? If not. its effect?
3. Whether any direction was given by the Election Commission to the Returning Officer to accept the revised authorisation of symbol
and allot the symbol of Lok Dal party to the petitioner? If so, its effect?
4. Whether the Election Commission is empowered to interfere with the allotment of symbol by the Returning Officer?
5. Whether the result of the election, in so far it concerns the respondent, has been materially affected due to non-allotment of the Lok Dal symbol to the petitioner?
6. Whether the petition discloses any cause of action?
7. To what relief, if any, is the petitioner entitled?
Findings
Issues Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 :
6. All these issues are clubbed, as they can be conveniently disposed of together. Before taking up each issue for discussion, let us have a look at the scheme of allotment of symbol and the legal position.
I. What is the scheme of allotment of symbol?
7. Section 169(1) of the Act, 1951, says that the Central Government may, after consulting the Election Commission, by notification in the Official Gazette make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act. Rule 5 of the Rules 1961, says that the Election Commission shall by notification specify the symbols that may be chosen by the candidates at elections in parliamentary or assembly constituencies. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Rules, 1961, states where a poll becomes necessary, the Returning Officer shall consider the choice of symbols expressed by the contesting candidates in their nomination papers and shall subject to any general or special direction issued in this behalf by the Election Commission-
(a) allot a different symbol to each contesting candidate in conformity, as far as possible, with his choice; and
(b) if more contesting candidates than one have indicated their preference for the same symbol, decide by lot to which of such candidates the symbol will be allotted.
Sub-rule (5) of Rule 10 declares that the allotment by the Returning Officer of any symbol to any candidate shall be final, except where it is inconsistent with any, direction issued by the Election Commission in this behalf, in which case the Election Commission may revise the allotment in such manner as it thinks fit. It follows from Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 that where a poll becomes necessary, the Returning Officer shall consider the choice of symbols expressed by the contesting candidates in their nomination papers and allot a different symbol to each candidate subject to any general or special direction issued in this behalf by the Election Commission. The Commission is, therefore, empowered to issue special or general direction in the matter of allotment of symbol Sub-rule (5) of Rule 10 gives a power to the Commission to revise the allotment of symbols. The Commission has plenary power under Article 324 of the Constitution. In exercise of such power, read with Rules 5 & 10 of the Rules, 1961, which have been framed under the Act, the Commission issued general directions, as contained in the Order 1968. The symbol Order, 1968. is. therefore, a compendium of direction in the shape of general provisions to meet various kinds of situations appertaining to elections with particular reference to symbols. The power to make these directions flows from Article 324 of the Constitution as well as from Rules 5 and 10 of the Rules. 1961.
8. In Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh, AIR 1982 SC 1559, their Lordships adverting to the aforesaid provisions of the Act and the Rules and to relevant case law succinctly stated the legal position in para 18 at page 1565 thus :
"The symbols Order made by the Election Commission in exercise of its power under Article 324 of the Constitution read with Rules 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Elections Rules and all other powers enabling it in that behalf, are in the nature of general directions issued by the Election Commission to regulate the mode of allotment of symbols to the contesting candidates.....
It must but logically follow as a necessary corollary that the Symbols Order is an order made under the Act."
It is, therefore, clear from this authority that a breach of any para of the Order, 1968, amounts to non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or the Act or any order made under the Act, within the meaning of Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act.
II. Whether there is any breach of any provision of the Constitution, the Act, the Rules, Order 1968?
9. The simple case of the petitioner is that the Commission having directed the Returning Officer by telex message dt. 16-2-1985 (Ext. P-6) to allot Lok Dal symbol to the petitioner and the Returning Officer having acted upon that direction and he having allotted the Lok Dal symbol to the petitioner on 18-2-1985, the Commission had no jurisdiction to review its direction dated 16-2-1985 on the ground that more than 50,000 ballot papers had been printed till then.
10. The contention of the respondent is that the Commission had no jurisdiction to receive the belated authorisation and in turn direct the Returning Officer. The respondent further contended that the direction dt. 16-2-1985 (Ext. P 6) is invalid and, therefore, the Commission was right in having reviewed or withdrawn the same and that there was no non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution, the Act, the Rules or the Order, 1968. The contention of Sri Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the direction (Ext. P-6) was a special direction and the Commission was fully competent to issue such a direction under Para 18(c) of the Order 1968. Para 18, Clause (c) reads as follows :--
"18. The Commission may issue instructions and directions --
(a)&(b).....
(c) in relation to any matter with respect to the reservation and allotment of symbols and recognition of political parties, for which this Order makes no provision or makes insufficient provision, and provision is in the opinion of the Commission necessary for the smooth and orderly conduct of elections."
Sri Kumar urged that the power to issue the direction (Ext P-6) is rooted in Clause (c) of Para 18, inasmuch as, the Commission is empowered to issue a direction in relation to any matter with respect to allotment of symbols under Clause (c). Referring to Para 13 of the Order, 1968, Sri Kumar urged that it covered a situation only when an authorisation of symbol is filed not later than 3 p. m. on the last date of withdrawal of candidatures and that this para or any other para of the Order, 1968, or any other provision either of the Act or the Rules does not cover up a situation where an authorisation is filed after the expiry of the time limit, as prescribed in Clause (b) of Para 13 and, therefore, the Commission was competent under Clause (c) of Para 18 to issue a special direction condoning the delay that occurred in the submission of the authorisation and ordering the Returning Officer to accept the revised authorisation issued by the Lok Dal President in favour of the petitioner having cancelled the earlier authorisation, made, in favour of the respondent. Under Clause (c) of Para 18, the Commission is empowered to issue a direction in relation to any matter of allotment, of symbols, inter alia, only when the Order 1968, containing general directions in the matter of reservation and allotment of symbols, makes no provision of makes insufficient provision and the provision is, in the opinion of the Commission, necessary for the smooth and ordinary conduct of elections. The question for consideration is whether there is no provision in the Order, 1968, to regulate the allotment of symbols within the meaning of Clause (c) of Para 18. As allotment of symbols to contesting candidates is necessary under Rules 5 and 10 of the Rules 1961, the Commission issued general direction by means of the Oder 1968 to regulate matter of allotment of symbols. So, the General directions contained in the Order 1968 cover the entire field of allotment of symbols. Para 13 says that for the purposes of this Order, a candidate shall be deemed to be set up by a political party, if and only if,--
(a) the candidate has made a declaration to that effect in his nomination paper;
(b) a notice in writing to that effect has, not later than 3 p.m. on the last day of withdrawal of candidatures, been delivered to the returning officer of the constituency; and
(c) the said notice is signed by the President, the Secretary or any other office-bearer of the party.
So, within the meaning of Para 13 an authorisation must reach the Returning Officer from the party President or from other authorised officer-bearers, not later than 3 p.m. on the last day of withdrawal of candidature. The point is whether the Commission is empowered to issue a direction in derogation of the provisions as contained in para 13 of the Order 1968. The field of allotment having already been covered by the General directions, as contained in the Order, 1968,1 am of the considered view that the Commission was not right in having issued the impugned direction (Ext. P-6) on 16-2-1985. The provisions of the Order 1968, which was issued by the Commission under the Act, as already held hereinbefore, are not only binding on the candidates and other authorities but are equally binding on the Commission as well. The Commission having already issued general direction in the Order 1968 covering the field of allotment of symbol, it was not open to the Commission to issue the direction (Ext. P-6) on 16-2-1985 to the Returning Officer in utter disregard of the provisions, made in para 13. The opening sentence of para 13 uses the expression "if, and only if and that clearly indicates that the mode prescribed in Para 13 is the only mode of submitting authorisation from a party President by a candidate to the Returning Officer in regard to symbol. The argument of Sri Kumar that the provisions of the Order 1968 do not cover up the situation when the authorisation was filed after 3 p.m. and, therefore, special direction could be issued by the Commission, is not worth accepting. No doubt, the powers of the Commission are plenary under Art 324 of the Constitution and it may issue any direction in the matter of conduct of election, but every direction issued by the Commission, cannot be regarded as having been issued in the conduct of elections and every direction cannot have the force of law. In the garb of ''conduct of elections'' the Commission cannot usurp the powers which are not vested in it. Having issued the general directions by way of Order 1968 in the exercise of powers, conferred by Article 324 of the Constitution and by Rules 5 and 10 of the Rules 1961 to regulate the allotment of symbols the Commission cannot exercise jurisdiction for issuing any more special direction in contravention of the provisions, as made in the Order 1968.
III. Scope of power of the Commission under Article 324 of the Constitution?
11. The superintendence, direction and control of all elections, either for Parliament or to the Legislature and for other offices are vested in the Commission and it has plenary powers, but such powers are circumscribed by the Act, the Rules and the Order 1968.
11A. In
"21..... Indeed, if we were to accept the contention of the respondents it would convert the Commission into an absolute despot in the field of election so as to give directions regarding the mode and manner of elections by-passing the provisions of the Act and the Rules purporting to exercise powers under cover of Article 324. If the Commission is armed with such unlimited and arbitrary powers and if it ever happens that the persons manning the commission share or are wedded to a particular ideology, he could by giving odd directions cause a political havoc or bring about a constitutional crisis, setting at naught the integrity and independence of the electoral process, so important and indispensable to the democratic system. 22..... Hence, we must construe Articles 324 to 328 as an integral part of the same scheme collaborating rather than colliding with one another. Moreover, a perusal of Articles 324 to 329 would reveal that the legislative powers in respect of matters relating to Parliament or the State Legislature vest in Parliament and in no other body. The Commission would come into the picture only if no provision has been made by Parliament in regard to the elections to the Parliament or State Legislatures."
For taking this, view, the Supreme Court relied on the Constitution Bench decision : Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr., New Delhi, AIR 1978 SC 851 in which His Lordship Krishna Iyer, J., in his inimitable style observed as follows :
"It is true that Article 324 has to be read in the light of the Constitutional scheme and the 1950 Act and the 1951 Act. Sri Rao is right to the extent he insists that if competent legislation is enacted as visualized in Art 327 the Commission cannot make himself free from the enacted prescriptions.......... and the supremacy of valid law over the Commission argues itself. No one is an imperium in imperio in our constitutional .order. It is reasonable to hold that the Commissioner cannot defy the law armed by Article 324. Likewise, his functions are subject to the norms of fairness and he cannot act arbitrarily. Unchecked power is alien to our system... Article 324, in our view, operates in areas left unoccupied by legislation and the words ''super intendence, direction and control'' as well as ''conduct'' of all elections are broadest terms."
12. Wading through the law, relevant on the question, the Supreme Court in the case of A. C. Jose, (AIR 1984 SC 921) (supra) summerised the legal position in para 25 as follows:--
"(a) When there is no Parliamentary legislation or rule made under the said legislation, the Commission is free to pass any orders in respect of the conduct of elections,
(b) where there is an Act and express Rules made thereunder, it is not open to the Commission to override the Act or the Rules and pass orders in direct disobedience to the mandate contained in the Act or the Rules. In other words, the powers of the Commission are meant to supplement rather than supplant the law (both statute and Rules) in the matter of superintendence, direction and control as provided by Article 324, (c) where the Act or the Rules are silent, the Commission has no doubt plenary powers under Article 324 to give any direction in respect of the conduct of election, and
(d) where a particular direction by the Commission is submitted to the Government for approval, as required by the Rules, it is not open to the Commission to go ahead with implementation of it at its own sweet will even if the approval of the Government is not given."
13. The principles laid down in the case of A. C. Jose (supra) squarely apply to the case at hand and I unhesitatingly accept the contention of Sri Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent, that in the teeth of Para 13 laying down a complete procedure as to how, when and before whom the authorisation can be filed, the petitioner cannot justify the direction (Ext. P-6) of the Commission, which collided with the express provisions of Para 13 of the Order 1968. If para 13 were not there, then the Commission would have issued a direction under Clause (c) of Para 18. Para 13 having made a provision as to how an authorisation from a party President is to be filed, there was no need for the Commission to issue any more direction as to how the authorisation filed after 3 p.m. would be dealt with. When Para 13 lays down a procedure, it means that that must be followed by all the candidates and no other mode contrary to the provisions of Para 13 was approved by the Commission and that was why no other provision contrary to the one already made in para 13 was made. The Commission having issued a direction touching the field already covered by Para 13 of the Order, 1968, I hold that the direction (Ext. P-6) is void and inoperative.
IV. Nature of direction?
14. In Lakshmi Charan Sen v. A. K. M. Hassan Uzaman AIR 1985 SC 1233 the Supreme Court ruled down :
"There is no provision in either the Act of 1950 or the Act of 1951 which would justify the proposition that the directions given by the Election Commission have the force of law. Election Laws are self-contained codes. One must look to them for identifying the rights and obligations of the parties, whether they are private citizens or public officials. Therefore, in the absence of a provision to that effect, it would not be correct to equate with law, the directions given by the Election Commission to the Chief Electoral Officers"
15. The principles that can be deduced from this authority is that if for making a direction the power of the Commission can be identified with the provisions of the Act, the Rules or the Order 1968, then only that direction would have the force of law otherwise not. The direction (Ext. P-6) having been given by the Commission in derogation of the express provisions made in Para 13 of the Order 1968, it cannot be said that the power to issue such a direction can be identified with or can be traced to any provision either of the Act or the Rules or the Order 1968. So the direction (Ext. P-6) cannot be any thing better than an administrative instruction, the breach of which will not attract Section 100(l)(d)(iv). In
"While construing the expression ''Superintendence, direction and control'' in Article 324(1), one has to remember that every norm which lays down a rule of conduct cannot possibly be elevated to the position of legislation or delegated legislation. There are some authorities or persons in certain grey areas who may be sources of rules of conduct and who at the same tune cannot be equated to authorities or persons who can make law, in the strict sense in which it is understood in jurisprudence."
Simply because Article 324 empowers the Commission to issue a direction for the ''conduct of election'', it cannot be inferred that every direction by a Commission has a force of law, the breach of which may attract the application of Section 100(l)(d)(iv) of the Act 1951. In the context of the direction given for using the voting machines by the Commission, the Supreme Court in the case of
"Furthermore, the power under Art 324 relating to superintendence, direction and control was actually vesting of merely all the executive powers and not the legislative powers."
16. For the reasons, I hold that the violation of the direction (Ext. P-6), if it is assumed but not accepted, will not amount to non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution, the Act, the Rules or the Order made under the Act.
V. Was the Commission competent to review or withdraw (Ext. P-6)?
17. From the facts, it is manifest that the direction (Ext P-6) was conditional, inasmuch as, the Lok Dal symbol was to be allotted to the petitioner only if the printing of ballot papers ''has not been done''. From the information passed on by the Government Press, Allahabad, which was obtained without the slightest delay, it was communicated to the Commission on 18-2-1985 under the radiogram (Ext P-4) that more than 50,000 ballot papers had been printed by the evening of 16th Feb., 1985. Sri Tripathi is right that the contingency as stated in Ext. P-6 having arisen, the Commission, which issued invalid direction at the inception, was fully justified in having reviewed or withdrawn the direction (Ext. P-6) on 18-2-1985 by means of a telex message (Ext. P-7), sent to the Chief Electoral Officer and the Returning Officer that a large number of ballot papers having been printed, there was no need to disturb the symbol allotted to the respondent and that the petitioner be treated as independent candidate. The direction being conditional depending on the contingency of the ballot papers having been printed, in my view that could not have been given effect to, as substantial printing had been done. What Sri Kumar argued is that the condition attached to the direction (Ext. P-6) could not be interpreted to mean the substantial printing, but that meant the ''complete'' printing and that having riot been done, review of the direction was without jurisdiction by the Commission. I do not agree with his view. These directions cannot be interpreted like the statute and they have to be interpreted, though it is merely academic in the instant case, in the context of the scheme of the Act and the election Rules. The election is a time bound programme and to keep up the tight Schedule of the election, in several provisions of the Act precise time has been mentioned. This is why the Commission took great care and made the direction conditional. When the Commission can issue a direction, which is administrative or executive in nature, then the reverse is also true that it can withdraw the direction at any time, when it so thinks fit.
18. Coming to the specific issues and the evidence of the parties, it is advantageous to go through the statement of P. W. 2, Sri Chandra Pal, who is an Assistant in the office of the Election Commission, New Delhi. He clearly deposed that the original letter from the President of the Lok Dal, which was addressed to the Returning Officer, had been received in the office of the Election Commission at 2.55 p.m. on 9-2-1985, It is also stated by him that there is a practice in vogue in the Election Commission Office at New Delhi that the recipient makes the endorsement of receipt on the copy of the document delivered to the Election Commission office. The petitioner examined himself as P. W. 4 and he clearly stated in the ''cross-examination that he had delivered the authorisation letter to Sri J. C. Chaudhary, Under Secretary (Symbol) in the Election Commission office on 9th February, 1985, at 2.55 p.m. From their statement, it is clear that the Authorisation letter was filed in the office of the Election Commission at 2.55 p.m. on 9-2-1985. But it was of no avail, because it is already pointed out that the authorisation letter must have been filed with the Returning Officer in the manner prescribed in para 13 of the Order 1968. So the issue No. 1 is decided accordingly.
19. The filing of revised authorisation with the Election Commission is invalid and, therefore, the Commission was not right in having issued the direction (Ext. P-6) pursuant to that authorisation. So, issue No. 2 is, therefore, decided in negative.
20. Undisputedly, the direction (Ext. P6) was given by the Commission to the Returning Officer on 16-2-1985 to accept the revised authorisation of symbol and allot the symbol of Lok Dal party to the petitioner. Prior to 16-2-1985, there was no direction to the Returning Officer by the Election Commission in this behalf. The issue No. 3 is decided accordingly.
21. Regarding issue No. 4, as already held the Election Commission was not empowered, to interfere with the symbol already allotted to the respondent by the Returning Officer and which allotment had become final under Sub-rule (5) of Rule 10, because on 9-2-1985 till the time of finalisation of allotment of symbols, allotment of Lok Dal symbol to the respondent was not inconsistent with the direction issued by the Election Commission. As already pointed out, the direction (Ext. P-6) was given for the first time on 16-2-1985 and there being no direction on 9-2-1985 the allotment of Lok Dal symbol to the respondent could not be said to be inconsistent with any direction of the Commission and, therefore, the question of revising the allotment could not arise. The issue No. 4, is, therefore, decided in Negative.
Issue No. 5.
22. Since the election of the respondent has been challenged on ground of non-compliance with the provisions of the Order 1968, the petitioner is under obligation to establish that the result of the election, in so far as it concerned to the respondent, was materially affected. The question is whether the respondent would have been defeated, if Lok Dal symbol had been refused to him? In short the question is whether the respondent won the election merely on the strength of symbol. The respondent won by the margin of 7412 votes and the petitioner received only 911 votes. The petitioner also contested the previous general election, held in the year 1980 on Lok Dal symbol and then he had secured only 2835 votes as against the returned candidate, who had secured 27,637 votes. The only explanation of the petitioner is that though he did not withdraw from the 1980 election, but no canvassing was done by him and by his supporters for him, because there was a directive from the party on account of electoral alliance with Congress(s) party to support the candidate of the latter. In 1980 election, Sri Ganga Singh was Congress(S) candidate and his score was only 6179 votes. There is no convincing evidence on record that the petitioner had secured 2835 votes in 1980 election, without any effort and canvassing, because of his name and image only, and that in fact he supported the Congress (S) candidate on account of the directive of his party. The respondent denied any electoral alliance between the Lok Dal and Congress(S) in 1980 election, rather he suggested that Sri Ganga Singh was not a Congress (S) candidate, but Congress (J) candidate in the last election. No material facts have been stated by the petitioner as to what developments have taken place between 1980 and 1985 elections which would have brought the petitioner a sure success in the 1985 election, if he was given the Lok Dal symbol. There being no material facts and the supporting material as to why the performance of the petitioner in the previous general election was poor and no material facts having been given to establish the changed circumstances between 1980 and 1985 to ensure a success to the petitioner, I hold that the petition is bound to fail on another ground as well that there is nothing to show that the election would have been materially affected, had the Lok Dal symbol not been allotted to the respondent. Mere surmises and conjectures of the petitioner will not establish that the result of the election of the respondent would have been materially affected, had he not been given the Lok Dal symbol. On the other hand, the respondent has averred and led evidence that he is associated with several organisations and his image in the constituency was better than any candidate. The issue No. 5 is hence decided in negative.
Issues Nos. 6 and 7
23. No material facts having been given to show as to how the result of the election, in so far as it concerned to the respondent, was , materially affected, it must be held that no cause of action was disclosed in the petition. The word ''material'' shows that the facts necessary to formulate a cause of action must be stated and omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and the statement of plaint becomes bad
24. No basis of the allegations made that the result of the election of the respondent would have been materially affected, if he was not allotted Lok Dal symbol, I hold that the petition does not disclose the cause of action and it is an additional ground to reject the petition. Issue No. 6 is decided accordingly.
25. For the reasons given hereinbefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
ORDER
26. The election petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs, which I assess at Rs. 500/-. The balance of the security amount may be withdrawn by the petitioner by making a proper application.
