2025:HHC:28872 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA EMP No.4 of 2024 in Election Petition No.1 of 2023 Decided on: 26.08.2025 Dr. Anil Dhiman … non-applicant/Petitioner Versus Suresh Kumar & ors. … Applicants/Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes ____________________________________________________ _ For the non-applicant/ Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate, petitioner: with M/s Arun Kumar and Anita, Advocates. For the applicants/ Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior respondents: Advocate, with Mr. Arun Kaushal, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, prayer has been made for the rejection of the Election Petition, inter alia, on the ground that the same does not disclose any cause of action and also lacks the material facts. 2. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants/respondents has taken the Court through the provisions of Sections 83 1 (a) and (b) and Sections 83 and 100 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and submitted that the petition is liable to be rejected in terms of the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:28872 Supreme Court of India in T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal and Another, (1977) 4 Supreme Court Cases 467, as well as the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Azhar Hussain versus Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 315 and D. Ramachandran Vs. R.V. Janakiraman and Others, (1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases 267. No other point was urged. 3. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the non-applicant/petitioner submitted that the present application is not maintainable, for the reason that the Election Petition does discloses a cause of action and it cannot be said that the Election Petition is hit by the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petition is not filed on alleging corrupt practices. After taking the Court through the contents of the Election Petition, he submitted that the same meets the parameters of Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, in terms whereof, the grievance of the petitioner stands clearly spelled out and the judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants have no bearing, as far as this particular case is concerned and rather to the contrary, they are in favour of the non-applicant/petitioner. 4. I have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties and have also carefully gone through the Election Petition as 3 2025:HHC:28872 well as the application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. 5. At this stage itself, this Court would like to make an observation that it is settled law that in the course of the adjudication of an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court has to peruse the contents of the petition and documents appended therewith, in order to ascertain as to whether the petition is hit by the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code or not. 6. In terms of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, the plaint is liable to be rejected, inter alia, on the ground where it does not disclose a cause of action and where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Herein, the contention is that the suit does not disclose any cause of action and further it is hit by the provisions of Sections 83 and 100 of the Representation of the People Act,1951. 7. The petitioner has challenged the election of respondent No.1, who has been declared as a returned candidate from 36- Bhoranj SC Assembly Constituency of Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly. The averments made in the plaint, in brief, are that general elections to the Legislative State Assembly, Himachal Pradesh were held in the year 2022. 4 2025:HHC:28872 8. According to the petitioner, he alongwith respondents No.1 to 4 contested the election from the 36-Bhoranj SC Assembly Constituency. The petitioner was the candidate of the Bhartiya Janta Party and respondent No.1 was from the Congress Party. The petitioner secured 24719 votes, whereas the respondent No.2 secured 24779 votes. According to the petitioner, respondent No.1 was declared elected as he secured maximum votes, i.e., 60 votes more than the petitioner. 9. In terms of the averments made in the petition, on the day of the counting of the votes, when the counting of the Postal Ballots was underway, the results of most of the Constituencies were announced at about 2:00 p.m. and the trend was favourable towards the Congress Party. In light of the said trend, the workers of the Congress Party (unauthorized persons) gathered and forcibly entered the Counting Hall, which created a complete confusion in the Counting Hall. The Returning Officer immediately took steps to protect the Postal Ballot Papers as well as EVM and other material from the crowd. According to the petitioner, in this confusion, Postal Ballots could not properly verified and counted. The Election Agent of the petitioner, namely, Ankur Dhiman, requested the Returning Officer to re-verify and re-count the Postal Ballots. According to the petitioner, his Election Agent was present at the spot, who saw that 5 2025:HHC:28872 most of the rejected Postal Ballots were cast in favour of the petitioner and they were wrongly rejected. The Election Agent of the petitioner requested the Returning Officer to re-count and re-verify the Postal Ballots, but on account of the confusion created by the unauthorized persons the Returning Officer did not verify and re- count the Postal Ballots. The Election Agent of the petitioner told the counting staff of the Election Commission that by not re-counting and re-verifying the Postal Ballots, they were doing injustice with the votes of Defence Personnel, but the Postal Ballots were neither re- verified nor re-counted and 248 Postal Ballots in the process were neither re-verified nor shown to the Counting Agents of the candidates. 10. By referring to Para 3.8 of the Election Commission of India Instructions, dated 30.04.2014, which have been quoted in the Election Petition, it is averred by the petitioner that it was desirable in the interest of justice to direct re-verification and re-counting of the Postal Ballots. After quoting Para 3.15 of the said Instructions, dated 30.04.2014, it is further averred in the Election Petition that as in the present case, the victory margin was of 60 votes and the total number of Postal Ballots received were 1996, therefore, it was mandatory for the Returning Officer to have had re-verified and re- counted these 1996 Postal Ballots which was not done by the 6 2025:HHC:28872 Returning Officer. According to the petitioner, no opportunity was given to him to see and check these Postal Ballots. Thus, according to the petitioner, the Instructions quoted in the Election Petition which were binding, stood violated. It is further mentioned in the Election Petition that on 08.12.2022, the counting of votes of EVM was going on. When the turn of Booth No.95 came and EVM of that Booth was brought from the Strong Room to the Counting Hall, at that time, it was revealed that EVM of Booth No.95 was already active. The EVM was shut down and rebooted by the technical personnel. This fact was noticed by everybody present in the Counting Hall and this has also been video-graphed and is in the record of the Election Commission. This fact was also brought to the notice of the Election Commission in writing. According to the election petitioner, the EVM of Booth No.95 was tampered and the votes of the petitioner were transferred to respondent No.1 and in these circumstances, the votes of Booth No.95 could not have been counted and there should have been fresh elections on these Booths, more so, in light of the fact that the difference between the votes of the petitioner and respondent No.1 was only of 60 votes and thus, there was manipulation by respondent No.1 from this EVM of Booth No.95. According to the election petitioner, the Instructions of the Election Commission have been violated by not conducting re-polling 7 2025:HHC:28872 of Booth No.95. It is further the contention of the election petitioner that respondent No.1 submitted his Nomination Form and alongwith the same Form, he submitted an affidavit Form No.26 as is envisaged under Rule 4A of the concerned Rules and it was mentioned in the affidavit Form No. 26 by respondent No. 1 that no criminal case was pending against him, whereas, a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was pending against respondent No.1 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No. 3, Hamirpur. According to the Election Petitioner, respondent No.1 had concealed this material information and given wrong information in Form No.26 and as such, the Nomination Form of respondent No. 1 was liable to be rejected. 11. It is further the contention of the Election Petitioner that respondent No. 1 concealed material facts with regard to his wife, who is in Government service, as respondent No.1 did not furnish the bank accounts of his spouse, which amounts to concealment of material facts and renders the nomination of the said respondent liable to be rejected. 12. Further, according to the Election Petitioner, respondent No. 1 also concealed the year of the purchase of his vehicle and tendered wrong information of his property as well as the property of his spouse and HUF, details whereof are given in the Election 8 2025:HHC:28872 Petition by the petitioner. Primarily on these basis, the Election Petition has been filed by the petitioner. 13. Section 83 (1) (a) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, provides that an Election Petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies. A perusal of the Election Petition, contents whereof in brief have been referred by me hereinabove, by no stretch of imagination can lead the Court to the conclusion that the same does not contains a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies. Whether the concise statement of material facts which have been given by the petitioner or which have been relied upon by the petitioner in the Election Petition, ultimately results in the Election Petitioner succeeding in the matter is not to be adjudged at this stage by the Court. All that the Court has to see is as to whether the petition contains a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies or not and the same constitute a cause of action which is triable and if not opposed may culminate into a decree. 14. In light of the averments made in the Election Petition, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the petition contains a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petition is hit by the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 (a) of the Civil Procedure Code, 9 2025:HHC:28872 because the petition does discloses a cause of action. This Court is again raising a caveat that because the petition, as per this Court, does disclose a cause of action, this does not mean that the Court is also giving an opinion that the said cause is meritorious also. That obviously will depend upon the defence of the respondents as well as the evidence etc., which will be lead by the parties. However, on a bare perusal of the petition, it cannot be said that it is hit by the provision of Order VII, Rule 11(a) of the CPC. 15. Now coming to Section 83 (1) (b) of the Representation of the People Act,1951, the same inter alia provides that an Election Petition shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, including as to the 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. 16. Section 2 (a) of the Act defines corrupt practice to be a practice specified in Section 123 of the Act. Section 123 of the Act, which deals with corrupt practice, defines corrupt practice as under:- “123. Corrupt practices The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act,- (1) "Bribery" that is to say- 10 2025:HHC:28872 (A) any gift, offer or promise by a candidate or his agent or by any person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent of any gratification, to any person whomsoever, with the object, directly or indirectly of inducing- (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- (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; (B) 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; 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 candidature. Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, the term "gratification" is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or gratifications estimable in money and in it includes all forms of entertainment and all forms of employment for reward but it does not include the payment of any expenses bonafide incurred at, or for the purpose of, any election and duly entered in the account of election expenses referred to in section 78. (2) Undue influence, that is to say, any direct or 11 2025:HHC:28872 indirect interference or attempt to interfere on the part of the candidate or his agent, or of any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent, with the free exercise of any electoral right: PROVIDED that- (a) without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of this clause any such person as is referred to therein who- (i) threatens any candidate or any elector, or any person in whom a candidate or an elector interested, with injury of any kind is cluding social ostracism and ex- communication expulsion from any caste or community; or (ii) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or an elector to believe that he, or any person in whom he is interested, will become or will be rendered an object of divine displeasure or spiritual censure, shall be deemed to interfere with the free exercise of the electoral right of such candidate or elector within the meaning of this clause; (b) a declaration of public policy, or a promise of publication, or the mere exercise of a legal right without intent to interfere with an electoral right, shall not be deemed to be interference within the meaning of this clause. (3) The appeal by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of his religion, race, caste, community or language or the use of, or appeal to 12 2025:HHC:28872 religious symbols or the use of, or appeal to, national symbols, such as the national flag or the national emblem, for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate: PROVIDED that no symbol allotted under this Act to a candidate shall be deemed to be a religious symbol or a national symbol for the purposes of this clause. (3A) The promotion of, or attempt to promote, feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens of India on grounds of religion, race, caste, communit or language, by a candidate or his agent or any other person with the consent of candidate or his election agent for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate. (3B) The propagation of the practice or the commission of sati or its glorification by a candidate or his agent or any other person with the consent of the candidate or h election agent for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate. Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, "sati" and "glorification" in relation to sati shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Commission of Sa (Prevention) Act, 1987. (4) The publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent, of any statement of fact which is false, and which he either believes to be false or does 13 2025:HHC:28872 not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate or in relation to the candidature, or withdrawal, of any candidate, being a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election. (5) The hiring or procuring, whether on payment or otherwise, of any vehicle of vessel by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent, or the use of such vehicle or vessel for the free conveyance of any elector (other than the candidate himself the members of his family or his agent) to or from any polling station provided under section 25 or place fixed under sub-section (1) of section 29 for the poll: PROVIDED that the hiring of a vehicle or vessel by an elector or by several electors at their joint costs for the purpose of conveying him or them to and from any such polling station or place fixed for the poll shall not be deemed to be a corrupt practice under this clause if the vehicle or vessel so hired is a vehicle or vessel not propelled by mechanical power: PROVIDED FURTHER that the use of any public transport vehicle or vessel or any tramcar or railway carriage by any elector at his own cost for the purpose of going to or coming from any such polling station or place fixed for the poll shall not be deemed to be a corrupt practice under this clause. Explanation: In this clause, the expression "vehicle" means any vehicle used cr capable of being used for the purpose of road transport, whether 14 2025:HHC:28872 propelled by mechani-cal power or otherwise and whether used for drawing other vehicles or otherwise. (6) The incurring or authorizing of expenditure in contravention of section 77. (7) The obtaining or procuring or abetting or attempting to obtain or procure by a candidate or his agent or, by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent, any assistance (other than the giving of vote) for the furtherance of the prospects of that candidate's election, '[from any person whether or not in the service of the Government) and belonging to any of the following classes, namely:- (a) gazetted officers; (b) stipendiary judges and magistrates; (c) members of the armed force of the Union; (d) members of the police forces; (e) excise officers; (f) revenue officers other than village revenue officers known as lambardars, malguzars, patels, deshmukhs or by any other name, whose duty is to collect land revenue and who are remunerated by a share of, or commission on, the amount of land revenue collected by them but who do not discharge any police functions; (g) such other class of persons in the service of the government as may be prescribed; and ¹[(h) class of persons in the service of a local authority, university, government company or institution or concern or undertaking appointed or deputed by the Election Commission in connection with the conduct of elections:] PROVIDED that where any person, in the service of the Government and belonging to any of the classes aforesaid, in the discharge or purported discharge of his official duty, makes any arrangements or provides any 15 2025:HHC:28872 facilities or does any other act or thing, for, to, or in relation to, any candidate or his agent or any other person acting with the consent of the candidate or his election agent (whether by reason of the office held by the candidate or for any other reason), such arrangements, facilities or act or thing shall not be deemed to be assistance for the furtherance of the prospects of that candidate's election. (8) Booth capturing by a candidate or his agent or other person. Explanation I: In this section the expression "agent" includes an election agent, a polling agent and any person who is held to have acted as an agent in connection with the election with the consent of the candidate. Explanation 2: For the purposes of clause (7), a person shall be deemed to assist in the furtherance of the prospects of a candidate's election if he acts an election agent of that candidate. Explanation 3: For the purposes of clause (7), notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, the publication in the Official Gazette of the appointment, resignation, termination of service, dismissal or removal from service of a person in the service of the Central Government (including a person serving in connection with the administration of a Union territory) or of a State Government shall be conclusive proof- (i) of such appointment, resignation, termination of service, dismissal or removal 16 2025:HHC:28872 from service, as the case may be, and (ii) where the date of taking effect of such appointment, resignation, termination of service, dismissal or removal from service, as the case may be, is stated in such publication, also of the fact that such person was appointed with effect from the said date, or in the case of resignation, termination of service, dismissal or removal from service such person ceased to be in such service with effect from the said date. [Explanation 4 : For the purposes of clause (8), “booth capturing” shall have the same meaning as in section 135A.” 17. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has stated that the petition is not filed on allegation of corrupt practice. Thus, in light of the fact that it is not the contention of the petitioner that he is assailing the election of respondent No.1 on the ground that respondent No. 1 indulged in corrupt practice, obviously the provisions of Section 83 (1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act,1951 are not attracted in the facts of this case. 18. Now coming to Section 100 of the Representation of People’s Act 1951, the same lays down the grounds for declaring the election to be void, meaning thereby, that the High Court can set aside an election by declaring it to be void in case the petitioner succeeds to point out that the election under challenge is hit by the provisions of Section 100 of the Act. This obviously is an exercise to be undertaken by the High Court at the time when the matter is finally decided by it on the basis of the pleadings and 17 2025:HHC:28872 evidence before it. It was not the contention of the applicant that the grounds of challenge to the election of the applicant alien to the provision of Representation of People Act, 1951. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the petition is liable to be dismissed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, in the light of the provisions of Section 100 of the Representation of Peoples Act. 19. Now, I will refer to the judgments relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the applicants-respondents. Hon’ble Supreme Court, T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal and Another, (1977) 4 Supreme Court Cases 467, has been pleased to hold that a Court must remember that if on a meaningful not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the Court should exercise its power under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, the Court should nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the parties searchingly under Order 10 of Civil Procedure Code. An active judge is the answer to irresponsible lawsuits. The Trial Court should insist imperatively on examining the party at the 18 2025:HHC:28872 first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. 20. In the considered view of this Court, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to hereinabove does not comes to the rescue of the petitioner for the reason that herein it cannot be said on the meaningful reading of the Election Petition that it is manifestly vexatious or meritless in the sense that it does not discloses a clear right to sue. As I have already observed hereinabove, the petitioner has made out a case in the Election Petition, which does discloses a cause of action and whether or not the petitioner ultimately succeeds, would obviously be depending upon the defence of the other parties as well as the evidence that may be led by the parties in support of their respective contentions. 21. In D. Ramachandran Vs. R.V. Janakiraman and Others, (1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases 267, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para-10 thereof, has been pleased to hold as under:- “10. On the other hand, Rule 11 of Order VII enjoins the Court to reject the plaint where it does not disclose a cause of action. There is no question of striking out any portion of the pleading under this rule. The application filed by the first respondent in O.A. No. 36/97 is on the footing that the averments in the election petition did not contain the material facts giving rise to a triable 19 2025:HHC:28872 issue or disclosing a cause of action. Laying stress upon the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 (a), learned senior counsel for the first respondent took us through the entire election petition and submitted that the averments therein do not disclose a cause of action. On a reading of the petition, we do not find it possible to agree with him. The election petition as such does disclose a cause of action which if unrebutted could void the election and the provisions of O.VII R.11(a) C.P.C. can not therefore be invoked in this case. There is no merit in the contention that some of the allegations are bereft of material facts and as such do not disclose a cause of action. It is elementary that under O.VII R.11 (a) C.P.C., the Court can not dissect the pleading into several parts and consider whether each one of them discloses a cause of action. Under the rule, there can not be a partial rejection of the plaint or petition. See Roop Lal Sathi Versus Nachhattar Singh Gill (1982) 3 S.C.C. 487. We are satisfied that the election petition in this case could not have been rejected in limine without a trial. 11. Designedly, we are refraining from adverting to the arguments pertaining to each allegation of corrupt practice, lest any observation by us might affect the views of the trial judge. Suffice it to point out that this court has repeatedly clarified the difference between "material facts" 22. This Court does not understands as to how this judgment is of any assistance to the applicants, for the reason that in the said judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court, upon the perusal of 20 2025:HHC:28872 the Election Petition held that the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not agree that the Election Petition did not disclose a cause of action which is unrebutted and could void the election. In fact, in this judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that it was elementary that under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court cannot dissect the pleadings into several parts and consider whether each one of them discloses a cause of action. 23. In Azhar Hussain Versus Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 (Supp.) Supreme Court Cases 315, Hon’ble Supreme Court while rejecting the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner therein that power to reject an election petition petition under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure could not be exercised at the threshold held as under:- “12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next argued that in any event the powers to reject an election petition summarily under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure should not be exercised at the threshold. In substance, the argument is that the court must proceed with the trial, record the evidence, and only after the trial of the election petition is concluded that the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure for dealing appropriately with the defective petition which does not disclose cause of action should be exercised. With respect to the learned counsel, it is an argument which it is difficult to comprehend. The whole purpose of conferment of such 21 2025:HHC:28872 powers is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the court and exercise the mind of the respondent. The sword of Damocles need not be kept hanging over his head unnecessarily without point or purpose. Even in an ordinary civil litigation the court readily exercises the power to reject a plaint if it does not disclose any cause of action. Or the power to direct the concerned party to strike out unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious parts of the pleadings. Or such pleadings which are likely to cause embarrassment or delay the fair trial of the action or which is otherwise an abuse of the process of law. An order directing a party to strike out a part of the pleading would result in the termination of the case arising in the context of the said pleading. The courts in exercise of the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure can also treat any point going to the root of the matter such as one pertaining to jurisdiction or maintainability as a preliminary point and can dismiss a suit without proceeding to record evidence and hear elaborate arguments in the context of such evidence, if the court is satisfied that the action would terminate in view of the merits of the preliminary point of objection. The contention that even if the election petition is liable to be dismissed ultimately it should be so dismissed only after recording evidence is a thoroughly misconceived and untenable argument. The powers in this behalf are meant to be exercised to serve the purpose for which the same have been conferred on the competent court so that the litigation comes to an end at the earliest 22 2025:HHC:28872 and the concerned litigants are relieved of the psychological burden of the litigation so as to be free to follow their ordinary pursuits and discharge their duties. And so that they can adjust their affairs on the footing that the litigation will not make demands on their time or resources, will not impede their future work, and they are free to undertake and fulfil other commitments. Such being the position in regard to matter pertaining to ordinary civil litigation, there is greater reason for taking the same view in regard to matters pertaining to elections. So long as the sword of Damocles of the election petition remains hanging an elected member of the legislature would not feel sufficiently free to devote his wholehearted attention to matters of public importance which clamour for his attention in his capacity as an elected representative of the concerned constituency. The time and attention demanded by his elected office will have to be diverted to matters pertaining to the contest of the election petition. Instead of being engaged in a campaign to relieve the distress of the people in general and of the residents of his constituency who voted him into office, and instead of resolving their problems, he would be engaged in campaign to establish that he has in fact been duly elected. Instead of discharging his functions as the elected representative of the people, he will be engaged in a struggle to establish that he is indeed such a representative, notwithstanding the fact that he has in fact won the verdict and the confidence of the electorate at the polls. He will have not only to win the vote of the people but also to win the vote of the court in a long 23 2025:HHC:28872 drawn out litigation before he can wholeheartedly engage himself in discharging the trust reposed in him by the electorate. The pendency of the election petition would also act as a hindrance if he be entrusted with some public office in his elected capacity. He may even have occasion to deal with the representatives of foreign powers who may wonder whether he will eventually succeed and hesitate to deal with him. The fact that an election petition calling into question his election is pending may, in a given case, act as a psychological fetter and may not permit him to act with full freedom. Even if he is made of stern mettle, the constraint introduced by the pendency of an election petition may have some impact on his subconscious mind without his ever being or becoming aware of it. Under the circumstances, there is greater reason why in a democratic set-up, in regard to a matter pertaining to an elected representative of the people which is likely to inhibit him in the discharge of his duties towards the nation, the controversy is set at rest at the earliest, if the facts of the case and the law so warrant. Since the court has the power to act at the threshold the power must be exercised at the threshold itself in case the court is satisfied that it is a fit case for the exercise of such power and that exercise of such powers is warranted under the relevant pro-visions of law. To wind up the dialogue, to contend that the powers to dismiss or reject an election petition or pass appropriate orders should not be exercised except at the stage of final judgment after recording the evidence even if the facts of the case 24 2025:HHC:28872 warrant exercise of such powers, at the threshold, is to contend that the legislature conferred these powers without point or purpose, and we must close our mental eye to the presence of the powers which should be treated as non-existent. The court cannot accede to such a proposition. The submission urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this behalf must therefore be firmly repelled.” 24. This judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court also does not comes to the rescue of the petitioner, for the reason that this Court is not even remotely suggesting that even if an election petition indeed is hit by the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 (a) of the Civil Procedure Code, then it cannot be rejected at the threshold. However, what this Court is observing is that the present election petition is not hit by the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 (a) of the Civil Procedure Code in terms of the contents of the application filed by the applicants/ respondents. 25. Accordingly, in light of above observations as this Court does not finds any merit in the present application, the same is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-, to be paid by the applicant to the election petitioner. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 26, 2025 (Rishi)