ORDER

1. This is an appeal by an unsuccessful candidate who then filed an election Petition before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The election was to the 11 Doon Assembly Constituency of the State of Himachal Pradesh. The first respondent was the successful candidate. His election was challenged by the appellant on the ground of corrupt practices covered by Sections 123(4) and (8) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called "the Act"). Sub-section (4) of Section 123 refers to the publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent of a false statement concerning a candidate which is known to be false. Sub-section (8) of Section 123 refers to booth-capturing.

2. In the election petition, the appellant averred that the aforesaid corrupt practices had been committed by the first respondent and Harbhajan Singh, his son, who was his election agent; also, by one Amarnath Kaushal, who was the counting agent of the first respondent. Both Harbhajan Singh and Amarnath Kaushal had been candidates at the election but had withdrawn their candidature. They were not impleaded as respondents to the election petition. The High Court, basing itself upon the provisions of Section 82 of the Act, came to the conclusion that the election petition was not maintainable and dismissed it.

3. Section 82 reads thus :

"82. Parties to the Petition petitioner shall join as respondent to his petition -

(a) where the petitioner, in addition to claiming a declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself of any other candidate has been duly elected, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner, and where no such further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates; and

(b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition."

4. The High Court took the view that Harbhajan Singh and Kaushal fell within the purview of sub-section (b) of Section 82 for they had been candidates at the said election before they withdrew their candidature and allegations of corrupt practice had been made against them in the election petition.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the allegations of corrupt practice in the election petition against Harbhajan Singh and Kaushal had not been made in their capacity of candidates at the election, but in their capacity of election and counting agents respectively of the first respondent and that, therefore, the provisions of Section 82(b) were not attracted. He submitted that the capacity in which the allegations were made against Harbhajan Singh and Kaushal was very relevant and ought to have been taken into consideration by the High Court. Emphasis was laid upon the fact that a remedy against Harbhajan Singh and Kaushal for their alleged commission of corrupt practices was available by the invocation of the provisions of Section 99 whereby the High Court could have given them notice and heard them before passing appropriate orders on the election petition. It was emphasised that it was the function of the advocate who had drafted the election petition to arraign the proper respondents therein and that neither the appellant nor the Constituency should suffer for his default; it was in the interest of both that the serious charges of corrupt practice should be investigated.

6. Learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the provisions of Section 82(b) were perfectly clear and the High Court was obliged to dismiss an election petition which did not comply with its provisions.

7. It will be seen that sub-section (a) of Section 82 uses the words "contesting candidates" and sub-section (b) uses the words "any other candidate". The combined effect of sub-sections (a) and (b) is, plainly, to require the impleadment in an election petition of all candidates at an election against whom allegations