SUDARSHA AVASTHIversusSHIV PAL SINGH

                         [2008] 9 S.C.R. 116


A                      SUDARSHA AVASTHI
                                  v.
                          SHIV PAL SINGH
                  (Civil Appeal No. 6807 of 2005)
                           MAY 16, 2008
B
           [A.K. MATHUR AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.]

          Representation of People Act, 1951 - ss.82, 83, 123 -
    Election petition - Not disclosing any cause of action and ma-
c   terial facts and particulars - Held: Not maintainable.
        The appellant filed election petition for declaration
  that election of respondent no.1 to the legislative council
  was void as the ground of corrupt practices on part of
  respondent no.1 in giving bribe to his brother, respon-
D dent no.2 and 3 inducing them to contest as candidate in
  election and to respondent no.4 to withdraw from the con-
  test.
       On the basis of pleadings, Single Judge concluded
  that there was no material facts disclosing the cause of
E action and consequently, dismissed the election petition.
  Hence these appeals.
         Dismissing the appeals, the Court
        HELD: 1. As per s.83 of the Representation of People         •
F Act, it is the duty of the person who files the election peti-
  tion and levels the allegation of corrupt practice to dis-
  close the material facts on which he relies and that should
  set forth the full particulars of a corrupt practice that the
  petitioner alleges including the full statement as far as
G possible disclosing the names of the parties alleged to
  have committed such corrupt practice and the date and
  place of commission of each such practice and the same
  shall be filed by the petitioner and verified in the manner
  as laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure. Apart from
H                                116
                      SUDARSHAAVASTHI v. SHIV PAL                 117
                               SINGH

        this, he has to file an affidavit in prescribed form in sup- A
        port of the allegation of such corrupt practice and he
        should disclose the particulars thereof. If he wants to rely
        on any document then it should be annexed to the peti-
        tion signed by the petitioner and verified in the same man-
        ner as the petition. (Para 5] (121-G & H; 122-A,B & C]       B
              2. Election petition is a serious matter and it cannot
...;.
        be treated lightly or in fanciful manner nor is it given to a
        person who uses this as a handle for vexatious purpose.
        The allegations made in the petition as disclosed in the
        election petition appear to be totally a cock and bull story c
        that a brother would give a sum of Rs.10,000/- in the of-
        fice of the Returning Officer i.e. Assistant Commissioner
        for appearing in the election or contesting the election or
        a sum of Rs.30,000/- to another candidate for withdraw-
        ing in full public view of all and sundry. On the face of it, it D
        appears to be unbelievable and these allegations have
        been made in order to make a ground for some how or
        the other to put pressure on the respondent. Single Judge
        after review of the allegations contained therein has rightly
        concluded that these allegations are not precise allega- E
        tions so as to show that these are serious allegations to
        be tried in the election petition. Single Judge has gone
        through all these allegations and it also appears to be
        most unbelievable and impracticable sequence of events.
        The Single Judge has correctly appreciated that this case F
        lacks in particularity any allegation of bribery as contained
        in s.123 read with s.83 of the Act. Material particulars dis-
        closed are not sufficient to be gone into for trial. [Paras 7,
        9] [127-G,H; 128-A,B,C,D & .E]
             Roop Lal Sathi v. Machhattar Singh AIR 1982 SC 1559;       G
        FA.Sapa & Ors. v. Singora & Ors. (1991) 3 SCC 375; TM.Jacob
~·
        v. C.Poulose & Ors. (1999) 4 SCC 274; Sardar Harcharan
        Singh Brar v.Sukh Darshan Singh & Ors. (2004) 11 SCC 196;
        Harkirat Singh v. Amrinder Singh (2005) 13 SCC 511 - re-
        ferred to.                                                      H
    118       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008] 9 S.C.R.


A        CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6807
    of 2005

         From the final Judgment and Order dated 28.4.2005 of
    the High Court Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench,
    Lucknow in Election Petition No. 3 of 2002
B
                                    WITH
                                                                             ...
          C.A. No. 1108 of 2007

         Sudarsha Avasthi (Appellant-in-person) and Dinesh Kumar
c   Garg for the Appellant.

         Ardhendumauli K. Prasad, TN. Singh, VK. Singh, Taruna
    A. Prasad and Kishan Datta for the Respondent.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D         A.K. MATHUR, J. 1. Both these appeals involve common          .
                                                                            -'
    question of fact and law, therefore, they are disposed of by this
    common order. For convenient disposal of both the case, the
    facts given in C.A.No.6807 of 2005 (Sudarsha Avasthi v. Shiv
    Pal Singh) are taken into consideration.
E
        2. This civil appeal is directed against the order passed
  by learned Single Judge of the rligh Court of Judicature at
  Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow by which three election
  petitions were disposed of one by the appellant, Jitendra Nath
  Pandey and Sha rad Tiwari by the common order. The appellant
F before us, Sudarsha Avasthi filed an election petition being Elec-
  tion Petition No.3 of 2002 for declaration of Shiv Pal Singh's
  election to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council to be void on
  various grounds. The appellant was an elector in the Electoral
  Roll for election to the Legislative Council of Uttar Pradesh from
G Lucknow Division Graduates' Constituency and his name was
  mentioned at Serial No.1595 of Part No.190 Aliganj Ward
  Lucknow. The election was held on 2.5.2002 and the result was
  declared on 7.5.2002. The respondent - Shiv Pal Singh was
  declared elected. The election of the elected representative-
H respondent was challenged on the ground that the result of the
               SUDARSHAAVASTHI v. SHIV PAL                    119
                  SINGH [A.K. MATHUR, J]

election had been materially affected by improper acceptance A
of nomination paper of respondent. Respondent committed
corrupt practice by giving money directly to Ram Pratap Singh
and Pradeep Kumar with a view to induce them to contest as
candidates in the said election. The respondent also commit-
ted corrupt practice by giving money to S.P.Singhal with the B
object of inducing him to withdraw his nomination. Lastly, the
respondent committed corrupt practice of procuring assistance
in furtherance of his prospects in the election from the Addi-
tional Commission (Administration) , Lucknow Division who was
the Assistant Returning Officer in the said election. A detailed    c
affidavit was filed by the appellant disclosing the material facts
of the corrupt practice. The Election petition was contested by
the returned candidate- the respondent, Shiv Pal Singh. It was
pleaded on behalf of the respondent that the election petition
did not disclose any cause of action, pleadings are vague, frivo-
                                                                     0
lous and vexatious. The concise statement of material facts and
the full particulars of the allegations of corrupt practices had not
been disclosed. Therefore, the election petition was liable to
be dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of Sections
82 & 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (herein-
after to be referred to as the Act). An application was also filed E
under Order VI Rule 16 read with Order VII Rule 11 of the Code
of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the C.P.C.)
praying for dismissal of the election petition. The respondent
moved an application and prayed that the preliminary issues
pertaining to the maintainability of the election petition and the F
other that the election petition lacked material facts and dis-
closed no cause of action. Two issues were ~ramed as prelimi-
nary issues which read as under:
     " 1. Whether the election petition preferred by the petitioner G
     is liable to be dismissed as it was presented before the
     Registrar and not before the Judge of the High Court
     dealing with the election matter ?
     2. Whether the election petition deserves to be dismissed
     as it does not disclose any cause of action and material       H
    120       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2008] 9 S.C.R.


A         facts and the particulars are lacking as alleged at thig
          stage ?
        It was also referred by learned Single Judge that during
  the course of the proceedings, only learned counsel for the re-
  spondent- Shiv Pal Singh in Election Petition No.3 of 2002 and
B the appellant in person submitted their arguments on the pre-
  liminary issues as reproduced above. No issues were framed
  nor any arguments were advanced in the other two election
  petitions. Therefore, learned Single Judge observed that the
  order passed in election petition No.3 of 2002 will have no bear-
C ing on the other two election petitions.
          3. So far as the issue No.1 was concerned, learned Single
    Judge after review of the pleadings, held that it was wrong to
    say that the election petition was not properly represented. So
    far as issue No.2 was concerned, learned Single Judge after
0
    review of pleadings and arguments made in the petition came
    to the following conclusion.
          "The long and short of above discussions is that the
          petitioner suppressed the material facts which could
E         disclose the cause of action and there being no cause of
          action, which might have accrued to him, I am of the
          decisive opinion that this election petition being devoid of
          merit deserves to be dismissed."
        4. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that the tenure of the
F present office of Legislative Council has already expired and
  new election has already been ordered and they were held dur-
  ing the pendency of this petition and the results are awaited.
  Therefore, it was contended on behalf of the respondent that it
  is purely an academic issue as the fresh election has already
G been held and the term of the present office is already over.
  Therefore, no useful purpose will be served in going into the
  merit of the case. The appellant submitted that he has made
  serious allegations of corrupt practice and in case he succeeds
  in establishing that there was corrupt practice then the incum-
H bent could be debarred from contesting the election. Therefore,
                     SUDARSHAAVASTHI v. SHIV PAL                      121
                        SINGH [A.K. MATHUR, J.]
 1    the appellant insisted that the civil appeal should be decided         A
      on merits.
            5. We have heard the appellant in person and learned
      counsel for the respondent and perused the record. So far as
      issue No.2 is concerned, whether the election petition deserves
      to be dismissed as it does not disclose any cause of action            B
.A    and material facts and the particulars are lacking. In order to
      appreciate the contention we may refer to necessary provisions
      of he Act pertaining to pleadings. Section 83 of the Act says
      what should be the contents of the election petition. Section 83
      of the Act reads as under :                                            c
           "83. Contents of petition.- (1) An election petition-
           (a)   shall contain a concise statement of the material facts
                 on which the petitioner relies;
                                                                             D
           (b)   shall set forth full particulars of an/~orrupt practice
                 that the petitioner alleges including as full a 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                                                         E

           (c)   shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the
                 manner laid don in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
                 (5 of 1908) for the verification of pleadings:
 ~
           Provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt            F
           practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an
           affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation
           of such corrupt practi_ce and the particulars thereof.
           (2)   Any schedule or annexure to be petition shall also be
                                                                             G
                 signed by the petitioner and verified in the same
...              manner as the petition."
            As per Section 83 of the Act, it is the duty of the person
      who files the election petition and levels the allegation of cor-
      rupt practice, he has to disclose the material facts on which he       H
    122       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008] 9 S.C.R


A  relies and that should set forth the full particulars of a corrupt   r
  practice that the petitioner alleges including the full statement
  as far as possible disclosing the names of the parties alleged
  to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place
  of commission of each such practice and the same shall be
B filed by the petitioner and verified in the manner as laid down in
  the Code of Civil Procedure. Apart from this, he has to file an
  affidavit in prescribed form in support of the allegation of such     '-

  corrupt practice and he should disclose the particulars thereof.
  If he wants to rely on any document then it should be annexed to
c the petition signed by the petitioner and verified in the same
  manner as the petition. Section 123 of the Act deals with the
  corrupt practice. What shall be the corrupt practice have been
  enumerated in Section 123 of the Act, like; bribery which has
  been defined that any gift, offer or promise by a candidate or
  his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candi-
D
  date or his election agent of any gratification, to any person        •
  whomsoever, with the object, directly or indirectly of including a
  person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to with-
  draw from being a candidate at an election or an elector to vote
  or refrain from voting at an election, or as a reward to a person
E for having so stood or not stood, or for having withdrawn or not
  having withdrawn his candidature; or an elector for having voted
  or refrained from voting. Therefore, the detailed particulars are
  required to be given that how a person is being bribed by vari-
  ous modes. All these particulars have to be given in the manner
F provided in Section 83 of the Act.                                    ..
        6. Now, keeping in background these provisions we may
  advert to the facts that what were the pleadings made by the
  appellant in his election petition and disclosure made therein.
  So far as the question of nomination is concerned, the appel-
G
  lant in person has not seriously agitated because he submitted
  that the election was held and that the term has almost come to
                                                                        ~
  an end. Therefore, he concentrated primarily on the question of
  corrupt practice disclosed by him in his election petition. The
  appellant tried to persuade us that sufficient material particu-
H
              SUDARSHAAVASTHI v. SHIV PAL                   123
                 SINGH (A.K. MATHUR, J.]

lars have been disclosed and the view taken by learned Single A
Judge that sufficient material particulars were not disclosed was
not correct. Therefore, what are the material particulars dis-
closed by the appellant in his election petition have to be con-
sidered. So far as the allegation of corrupt practice is concerned,
the same are contained in paragraph 5 B, C & D of the election B
which read as under :

     "5 B Because the Returned Candidate Respondent No.1
     committed the corrupt practice of Bribery for gratification
     ( i.e. giving money) directly to induce Respondent No.2
     and 3 to stand as candidates in the aforesaid election.       C

     C.    Because the Returned candidate, Respondent No.1
           committed the corrupt practice of Bribery by giving
           money to Respondent No.4 with object of inducing
           directly the Respondent No.4 to withdraw from the
                                                                   0
           contest from the aforesaid election.
     D.     Because the Returned Candidate the Respondent
            No.1 committed the corrupt practice of procuring
            assistance for the furtherance of his prospects in the
            aforesaid election, from the Additional Commissioner E
            (Administration), Lucknow Division, Shri A.K.Mishra,
          . who was a!so the Assistant Returning Officer in the
            aforesaid election, and wrongly a·llowed an
            application of the Respondent No.1 for corredion of
            his name ori the ballot paper in violation of the F
            applicable statutory provision and disallowed, with
            utter disregard to the directions given by the Election
            Commission of India to the Returning Officers for
            dealing with such applicants, a similar application of
            Km. Vibha Avasthi, another candidate to the aforesaid G
            election, on the basis of extraneous material privately
            supplied by the Respondent No.1 to the said Assistant
            Returning Officer."
     So far as the ground Bis concerned, the allegations have
been set out in paragraph 16 and the relevant allegations start    H
    124         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2008] 9 S.C.R.


A   from paragraphs 19 and 20 which read as under :
          "19. The Respondent No.2 Ram Pratap Singh. S/o Late
          Ram Lal Singh is real brother of the Respondent No.1.
          The Respondent inducing directly Respondent No.2 to
          stand as a candidate in the aforesaid election. On
B         11.04.2002 at about 12.45 p.m. gave Rupees Ten
          Thousahd (Rs.10,000.00) to Respondent No.2 inside the
          Court room of the Commissioner Lucknow Division, for
          filing his (i.e. of Respondent No.2) nomination papers to
          become a candidate in the aforesaid election to
c         U.P.Legislative Council from Lucknow Division Graduates'
          Constituency. The Respondent No.2 thereafter deposited
          the security money and filed his nomination papers before
          the Assistant Returning Officer in the Court room of the
          Commissioner, Lucknow, in presence of the Respondent
D         No.1.

          20.   That Respondent No.1, while inducing Respondent
                No.3 directly to stand as a candidate in the aforesaid
                elect6ion, on 11.04.2002 at about 1.00 PM gave
                Rupees Ten Thousand (Rs.10,000.00) to
E               Respondent No.3 Pradeep Kimar,S/o Late Behari
                Lal in the Verandah which is outside the court room
                of the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, for filing his
                (i.e. of Respondent No.3) nomination papers to
                become a candidate in the aforesaid election to the
F               Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council from the Lucknow
                Division Graduates' Constituency. The Respondent
                No.1, thereafter, delivered the nomination papers to
                the Respondent No.3 and made him to put his
                signature on them at the table inside the court room
G               of the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, while the
                Respondent No.1 was standing by his side indicating
                the places for putting the signatures. The Respondent
                No.3 thereafter deposited the security money and
                filed his nomination papers before the Assistant
H               Returning Officer in the courtroom of Commissioner,
               SUDARSHAAVASTHI v. SHIV PAL                  125
                  SINGH [A.K. MATHUR, J.]

           Lucknow Division. "                                     A
     So far as the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 C are
     concerned, those are contained in paragraph 21 onwards.
     Relevant allegations are in paragraphs 23 and 24 which
     read as under :
                                                                   B
     "23. That Respondent No.4 S.P.Singhal S/o Ram
          Chandar Singhal had filed his nomination paper on
          06.04.2002 in the aforesaid election and his
          nomination papers were found valid and accepted
          by the Returning Officer on 12.04.2002.                  c
     24.   That Respondent No.1 gave Rupees Thirty Thousand
           (Rs.30,000.00) to Respondent No.4 inside the
           compound of the Commissioner's Office (Lucknow
           Division) near the exit gate, on 15.04.2002 at about
           2.00 p.m. to withdraw from being a candidate at the     D
           aforesaid election. Thereafter, the Respondent No.4
           withdraw his candidature by giving Notice in writing
           addressed to the Returning Officer on 15.4.2002."

     So far as the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 D, those   E
are set out at paragraph 25 onwards. Relevant portions con-
tained in paragraphs 27 to 29 which read as under:

     "27. That on 15.04.2002 at 2.25 P.M. the petitioner had
          submitted an application from Km.Vibha Avasthi, a
          candidate in the aforesaid election, for addition of F
          her popular name on the ballot paper, by also
          including her alias"Dr.Vibha Harikrishna Avasthi", and
          at that time the Respondent No.1 and his counsel
          were pleading before the Assistant Returning Officer
          Shri A.K.Mishra for allowing to move a third G
          application for correction of his name in a manner as
          to distance/distinguish it on the ballot paper trom the
          other two candidates with similar name viz. Shiv Pal
          Singh and the Petitioner tried to object to such a
          request, which was improper and beyond the scope H
    126         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008] 9 S.C.R


A               of the provision in this regard, but a visibly annoyed
                Assistant Returning Officer ShriAK.Mishra advised
                the Petitioner to confine his submissions on the
                application moved by the petitioner, but when
                requested to inform the objection, if any, or the
B               reasons of dissatisfaction of the Returning Officer
                as to the genuineness of the request, the said
                Assistant Returning Officer announced that time for
                withdrawing the nominations and making
                applications was over, and left the room without
c               pronouncing any decision on the applications before
                him.

          28. That at about 3.45 p.m. on the same day, the petitioner
              went to the chamber of the Assistant Returning Officer
              Shri A.K.Mishrpa, the doors of his room were half
D             closed, and the petitioner was not allowed entry by
              the home guard on duty outside the room, informing
              that the Additional Commissioner was busy with
              another candidate and while the petitioner was
              waiting outside his room he could hear a conversation
E             inside the room, with Mr.AK.Mishra inquiring from
              Mr.Raees, the genuineness of a sample ballot paper
              given by S.P.Singh, and the reply was in affirmative.
          29.   That thereafter the doors of the room opened and
                the Petitioner saw the Respondent No.1 and his
F               counsel coming out of room bowing and profusely
                thanking the ARO Shri AK.Mishra; and then the
                petitioner was allowed entry inside the room of Shri
                A.K.Mishra and saw Mr.Raees Ahmad, the Senior
                Clerk of Lucknow District Election Off~e sitting inside
G               the room and when the Petitioner asked the fate of
                the application moved by him on behalf of Km.Vibha
                Avasthi, Shri A.K.Mishra the ARO replied that the
                same was rejected, but refused to give reasons for
                his decision, even on asking by the Petitioner."
H
                    SUDARSHAAVASTHI v. SHIV PAL                     127
                       SINGH [AK. MATHUR, J.]
J
           Learned Single Judge has taken into consideration these          A
     grounds of corrupt practice along with the allegations contained
     in the election petition as reproduced above and came to the
     finding that these all appear to be cock and bull story. It was
     observed that it is not believable that Ram Pratap Singh who is
     the real brother of the respondent would accept illegal gratifica-     B
     tion in public view, that too inside the Court room of the Com-
     missioner. It was further observed that the appellant did not dis-
     close the name of any witness who was present inside the court
     room or outside when the money was handed over to the brother
     of the respondent. Similarly on the analogy that the theory of         c
     giving Rs.30,000/- as bribe to the Respondent No.4 in office of
     Commissioner appears to be nothing but figment of imagina-
     tion. Lastly regarding ground D it was observed that Ku. Vibha
     Avasthi wanted some alteration in her name. She did not move
     any application for addition of surname of her father. But the
;.                                                                          D
     copy of this application for alteration. of the name was not filed
     and it was deliberately concealed that he was the agent of Kumari
     Vibha Avasthi and it was also found that it is difficult to under-
     stand when the Office of the Assistant Commissioner cum Re-
     turning Officer, Shri A.K.Mishra was cordoned of by the Home
     Guards how did he enter inside the room of Shri AK.Mishra              E
     and it is unbelievable that the respondent went inside the room
     of Shri AK.Mishra and influenced him in one way or the other
     and secondly it was also held that it was not wrong on the part
     of the candidate to have entered the office of Shri AK.Mishra
     and it is difficult to believe that other person standing outside      F
     could know what transpired between the Officer and the person
     inside. Therefore, learned Single Judge found that this is noth-
     ing but a cock and bull story. On the basis of these pleadings
     learned Single Judge ultimately concluded that there was no
     material facts disclosing the cause of action and consequently,        G
     dismissed the election petition.
~

           7. The election petition is a serious matter and it cannot
     be treated lightly or in fanciful manner nor is it given to a person
     who uses this as a handle for vexatious purpose. The allega-
                                                                            H
    128          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2008] 9 S.C.R


A tions made in the petition as disclosed in the election petition
  appear to us to be totally a cock and bull story. We are in agree-
  ment with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that a
  brother will give a sum of Rs.10,000/- in the office of the Return-
  ing Officer i.e. Assistant Commissioner for appearing in the elec-
B tion or contesting the election or a sum of Rs.30,000/- to an-
  other candidate for withdrawing in full public view of all and sun-
  dry. On the face of it appears to be unbelievable and these alle-
  gations have been alleged in order to make a ground for some
  how or the other to put pressure on the respondent. Learned
c Single Judge after review of the allegations contained therein
  has rightly concluded that these allegations are not precise al-
  legations so as to show that these are serious allegations to be
  tried in the election petition. Learned Single Judge has gone
  through all these allegations and it also appears to us to be
  most unbelievable and impracticable sequence of events. It is
D                                                                         ~
  easy to allege without giving the detail particulars whether the
  whole thing transpired in a hearing distance. We are in full
  agreement with the view taken by learned Single Judge and we
  are of opinion that the learned Single Judge has correctly ap-
  preciated that this case lacks in particularity any allegation of
E bribery as contained in Section 123 read with Section 83 of the
  Act.
          8. The appellant in person has taken us through various
    decisions of this Court. The followings are the list of cases cited
                                                                          ~
F   by the appellant.
          i)     AIR 1982 SC 1559
                 Roop Lal Sathi v. Machhattar Singh
          ii)    (1991) 3 sec 375
G
                 F.A.Sapa & Ors. v. Singora & Ors.

          iii)   (1999) 4 sec 274
                 TM.Jacob v. C.Poulose & Ors.

H         iv)    (2004) 11 sec 196
                    SUDARSHAAVASTHI v. SHIV PAL                     129
                       SINGH [A.K. MATHUR, J.]

                 Sardar Harcharan Singh Brar v.                              A
                 Sukh Darshan Singh & Ors.
            v)   (2005) 13 sec 511

                 Harkirat Singh v. Amrinder Singh
                                                                             B
           9. No useful purpose will be served by referring to all these
     cases. The ratio of all these cases is the election petition should .
     contain the allegation of bribery in a concise manner with mate-
     rial particulars. Material particulars disclosed in the present as
     mentioned above, are not sufficient to be gone into for trial. We       c
     are in full agreement with the view taken by learned Single Judge.
     Therefore, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dis-
     missed. No order as to costs.

            Civil Appeal No.1108 of 2007
                                                                             D
           10: The election petition before the High Court was dis-
     missed for want of prosecution as nobody appeared. The
     learned Judge has recorded in his order that the matter· was
     adjourned number of times and nobody appeared. Therefore, it
     is not necessary to restore this petition as petitioner was not
     serious and present term has already expired. This appeal is
     dismissed with no order as to costs.
     D.G.                                        Appeals dismissed.




-{