The Election Petition was dismissed for failing to comply with mandatory provisions of Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, requiring all contesting candidates to be joined.

JUDGMENT :

1) Petitioner has filed the present Election Petition challenging election of Respondent No.7 from 28-Mumbai North East Parliamentary Constituency vide result dated 4 June 2024 and for a declaration of his own election from that constituency. In the Election Petition as originally filed, Petitioner initially impleaded State of Maharashtra, Returning Officer, Election Commission of India, Union of India and other Government officials in addition to the returned candidate (Respondent No.7) thereto. After noticing provisions of Section 82 of the Representation of the People’s Act, 1951 (the Act) the Petitioner has filed Application (Lodging) No.27786 of 2024 seeking issuance of summons against 18 candidates, who also contested the election. Respondent No.7 has opposed Application (Lodging) No.27786 of 2024 by filing affidavit-in-reply. Additionally, Respondent No.7 has filed Application (Lodging) No. 32011 of 2024 seeking (i) deletion of Respondent Nos.1 to 6 from the Election Petition, (ii) dismissal of the Election Petition for non-compliance of provisions of Section 82 of the Act, (iii) striking off the pleadings in various paragraphs of the Election Petition under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Code) and (iv) rejection of the Petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. Application (Lodging) No.32011 of 2024 is opposed by the Petitioner by filing affidavit-in-reply.

2) Since one of the prayers in Application (Lodging) No. 32011 of 2024 filed by Respondent No.7 for rejection of Election Petition on account of failure to implead the contesting candidates under Section 82 of the Act is connected with Petitioner’s Application (Lodging) No.27786 of 2024 filed for seeking issuance of summons to 18 contesting candidates, both the Applications are taken up for hearing together.

3) I have heard the Petitioner in-person in support of Application (Lodging) No.27786 of 2024 and for opposing Application (Lodging) No.32011 of 2024. He would submit that Application (Lodging) No.27786 of 2024 has been filed by him in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 of the Act wherein it is mandatory for the Petitioner to join all contesting candidates to the Election Petition. He would submit that Application (Lodging) No.27786 of 2024 merely ensures compliance with provisions of Section 82 of the Act and would enable the Court to hear merits of the Election Petition and that therefore Petitioner must be permitted to implead the 18 contesting candidates (proposed Respondents) to the Election Petition. He would submit that the Election Petition has been filed within a period of 45 days of the election of Respondent No.7 and that there is no necessity that the other contesting candidates must also be impleaded to the validly filed Election Petition within a period of 45 days. He would in fact go ahead and submit that there is clear ambiguity in Section 81 of the Act, which requires filing of Election Petition within a period of 45 days from the date of election of the returned candidate ignoring the provisions of Limitation Act. He would also submit that he had in fact drafted the Election Petition by impleading all the contesting candidates, but the registry of this Court refused to register such Petition and advised him to file a Petition impleading only Respondent No.7. He would rely upon judgment of the Apex Court in Public Interest Foundation and Others V/s. Union of India and Anr., (2019) 3 SCC 224.

4) So far as Application (Lodging) No.32011 of 2024 filed by Respondent No.7 is concerned, Petitioner would oppose the same submitting that the prayer of Respondent No.7 for rejection of the Petition on account of non-compliance of provisions of Section 82 of the Act would automatically be rendered infructuous once Petitioner’s Application (Lodging) No.27786 of 2024 is allowed. That the said application is frivolous and vexatious. He would submit that this Court has already issued notices to the proposed Respondent