JUDGMENT:- Rule. Respondents waive service.

2. This Writ petition is directed against an Order below Exhibit-15 in Election Petition No.5 of 2006. This Application was filed by the Original Opponent Nos.2 and 3 praying for deletion from the petition.

3. That Application was opposed by the First Respondent-Original petitioner and by the impugned Order dated 19.06.2007, the said Application was rejected.

4. Since the service is complete and all respondents are appearing through Advocates, with their consent the Rule is made returnable forthwith.

5. The request in the Application was that the Elections are concluded, the results are declared and the aggrieved candidate has preferred the Election Petition. In such circumstances and when the elections are held under the supervision and control of the State Election Commission, then, in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court which has been consistently followed, the Officers who have conducted the Election and those in the employment of the Municipal Council are not necessary parties to the Election Petition challenging the validity of the election of the Returned Candidate. They have to be deleted.

6. The First Respondent opposed this Application which was filed on 8.6.2007 and after hearing both sides, the Application has been rejected.

7. It is contended by the petitioner that the impugned order is ex-facie erroneous and illegal. The Election Petition is to challenge the election of the returned/elected candidate. There is no question of the petitioner being impleaded as party to the said Election Petition. For the Election Petition to proceed and be disposed off. it is not necessary that the petitioner should be impleaded as a party respondent. The petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party.

8. Reliance is placed upon the following decisions:-

(i) AIR 2004 S.C. 5007, Rupadhar Pujari Vs. Gangadhar Bhatra.

(ii) AIR 2000 Born. 294 : [2000(3) ALL MR 189] Ganesh Rarnchandra Naik Vs. Sitararn Bhoir and Ors.

9. On the other hand, the First Respondent supports the impugned order. The Learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent no.2 urged that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above Decisions which has been followed by this court would not apply. It is urged that most of the provisions relating to election and Election Petition are pari-materia with the provisions contained in the Representation of People Act. 1951 but procedural laws and provisions do not apply. My attention was invited to a Decision reported in AIR 2004 S.C. page 5007 Rupadhar Pujari Vs. Gangadhar Bhatra.

10. I have perused the petition and the annexures thereto, so also, the Decisions relied upon. In my view, the law laid down by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jyoti Basu and Anr. Vs. Debi Ghosal and Ors. reported in AIR 1982 S.C. 983 would apply clearly to this case.

11. Following that decision, a learned Single Judge of this court to a Decision reported in AIR 2000 Born. page 294 : [2000(3) ALL MR 189] Ganesh Rarnchandra Naik Vs. Sitararn Bhoir and Ors. had allowed a similar Application. After referring to the Supreme Court Decisions, the learned Judge has observed thus:-

"10. The aforesaid observations made by the Apex Court squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Merely because there are certain allegations against Respondent nos.10, 11 and 12 who are the Returning Officer. The Electoral Registration Officer and the Election Commission of India respectively, they do not become necessary party in election petition. The Supreme court has already held that concept of a proper party to an election petition is alien to the provisions of Representation of People Act."

12. In this case. there is no opposition to the Application of the Petitioner. Respondent no.2 to this writ Petition is the Original Petitioner and he did not raise any specific objection whereas Respondent no.3 stated that the Decision of the Election officer is challenged in the E

Click Here to Read the rest of this document