ORDER :

1. By this application, the applicant-respondent No.2 in Election Petition No.1 of 2019 has prayed for deleting his name from the array of the respondents in the cause title of the election petition in view of the provisions of section 82 r/w section 86 (4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

2. A few facts necessary for disposal of this application can be summarized as follows.

3. Petitioner - Kirtikumar Dattatray Shivsharan has filed an election petition on various grounds, inter alia, seeking a declaration that election of respondent No.3 - Shri. Sha. Bra. Dr. Jai Sidheshwar Shivachary Mahaswamiji from 42- (SC) Solapur as null and void. It is, inter alia, prayed for declaring the certificate issued in favour of respondent No.3 - Shri. Sha. Bra. Dr. Jai Sidheshwar Shivachary Mahaswamiji from the said constituency as null and void.

4. I heard Ms. Drishti Shah, learned Counsel for the applicant. She, inter alia, submits to delete the name of the respondent No.1- The Election Commission of India from the array of the respondent as, her arguments would be common in respect of both the respondents.

5. Ms. Shah invited my attention to sections 82 and 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which read thus;

"82. Parties to the petition.- A petitioner shall join as respondents 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 or 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.

"86. Trial of election petitions.- (1) The High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of section 81 or section 82 or section 117.

(2).....

(3).....

(4) Any candidate not already a respondent shall, upon application made by him to the High Court within fourteen days from the date of commencement of the trial and subject to any order as to security for costs which may be made by the High Court, be entitled to be joined as a respondent".

6. It is apparent from the aforesaid provisions that the parties to the petition can only be contesting candidates against whom relief has been sought for declaration that the election of and/or any of the candidates is void.

7. Learned Counsel has, therefore, placed reliance on following decisions;

(a) Jyoti Basu and others Vs. Debi Ghosal and others, AIR 1982 Supreme Court 983,

(b) B. Sundara Rami Reddy Vs. Election Commission of India and others, 1991 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases, 624;

(c) Michael B. Fernandes V. C.K. Jaffar Sharief and others, AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1041;

8. Learned Counsel for the applicant would argue that the applicant who was a Returning Officer can, at the most, be summoned as a witness. Thus, according to the learned Counsel for the applicant, the applicant is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the election petition. She further submits that even otherwise there are no allegations against the officers of the election commission.

9. The respondent - Kirtikumar Dattatray Shivsharan in his reply states that the applicant has not complied with the provisions of the Act and Rules as well as the directions given by the respondent No.1 from time to time. It is stated in the reply that the applicant has committed corrupt practices by helping the returned candidate respondent No.3, inasmuch as, affidavit of the applicant reflects that he had acted mala fide at the time of counting of votes which amounts to corrupt practice. The reply further states that the applicant in his affidavit has unequivocally admitted about differences of six votes due to technical mistakes as well as 141 votes between the poled votes and counted votes. It is further stated that the applica