PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and Sinha JJ.
Shah Mohammad Umair
Versus
Ram Charan Singh
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 78 of 1953 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 08, 1953
ELECTION PETITION - Dismissal - Non-joinder of parties - Whether mandatory - Interpretation of Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Fact of the Case:
An election petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the election of the opposite party No. 1 to the Bihar Legislative Assembly. The Election Tribunal dismissed the petition on the preliminary ground of non-joinder of three other persons who were duly nominated candidates for the election but had withdrawn their candidature. The petitioner filed an application for amendment of the election petition by adding the aforesaid three persons as respondents, which was also rejected by the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the provision of Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which requires a petitioner to join as respondents all the candidates who were duly nominated at the election other than himself, is not imperative and mandatory. Non-compliance with Section 82 does not entail dismissal of the petition on that ground alone. The duly nominated candidates who had withdrawn their candidature are not necessary or even proper parties to the petition.
Issues: 1. Whether the provision of Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is imperative and mandatory? 2. Whether non-compliance with Section 82 entails dismissal of the election petition? 3. Whether the duly nominated candidates who had withdrawn their candidature are necessary or proper parties to the election petition?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, in the context of other provisions of the Act, particularly Sections 85 and 90(4). These sections expressly provide for dismissal of an election petition for non-compliance with the provisions of Sections 81, 83, and 117, but they do not mention Section 82. This indicates that non-compliance with Section 82 was not intended to be a fatal defect. 2. The Court also considered the language of Section 90(1), which allows any other candidate to be joined as a respondent to the election petition within fourteen days of the publication of the notice in the Official Gazette. This provision suggests that the duty cast upon the petitioner under Section 82 to join all duly nominated candidates as respondents is not imperative. 3. The Court further held that the duly nominated candidates who had withdrawn their candidature are not necessary or even proper parties to the election petition. They have no interest greater than that of any other elector or voter and their position is no better than that of any other elector of the constituency.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the order of dismissal of the election petition made by the Tribunal and held that the petitioner is entitled to his costs of the petition.
Sinha, J.
1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 827 of the Constitution, and arises out of an election petition filed by the petitioner, Shah Mohammad Umair, for a declaration that the election of Ram Charan Singh, opposite party No. 1 to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from the Kurtha Constituency was void, and also for a declaration that the petitioner had been duly elected. Three other persons, besides Ram Charan Singh, namely, Parasnath Sharma, Rajaram Singh son of Sri Dukharan Singh, and Rajaram Singh son of Sri Mukhlal Singh, were" made respondents to the election petition. These three persons and the opposite party No. 1 and the petitioner were validly nominated candidates at the election, that is to say, they had not withdrawn their candidature. There were three other persons, namely, Siasaran Singh, Ramprakash Mahton and Balmiki Mahton, who were duly nominated candidates for the election, but, within the time allowed, they had withdrawn their candidature & they were not in the field at the time of the actual election. These three persons" were not made parties to the election petition. A point was raised on behalf of Ram Charan Singh, the only contesting respondent, that the election petition should be dismissed on the preliminary ground of non-joinder of these three persons and that the Election Tribunal need not go into the merits of the petition. Issue No. 2 ran as follows :
"Is the petition liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of parties?"
Sometime later, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the election petition by adding the aforesaid three persons as respondents.
2 The election petition was heard on issue No. 2 only and also on the question as to whether the petition for amendment should be allowed. The Election Tribunal, by a majority of 2 to 1, held that the election petition was not maintainable because of the non-joinder of the aforesaid three persons, and the amendment of the petition sought for should not be allowed; and the election petition was dismissed.
3. Article 329, Sub-clause (b) of the Constitution provides that
"no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature."
In accordance with the provision aforesaid, the Representation of the People Act (43 of 1951) providing
"for the conduct of elections to the House of Parliament and to the House or Houses of the Legislature of each State, the qualifications and disqualifications for membership of those Houses, the corrupt and illegal practices and other offences at or in connection with such elections and the decision of doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with such elections,"
was enacted by Parliament in 1951. This Act will hereafter be referred to as the Act in the course of my judgment.
4 Section 80 of the Act says that
"no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this Part" (Part VI)"
and Section 81 lays down the procedure for presentation of election petitions. It says that
"an election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Sec.100 and Sec.101 to the Election Commission by any candidate at such election or any elector in such form and within such time but not earlier than the date of publication of the name or names of the returned candidate or candidates at such election under Sec. 67, as may be prescribed."
The explanation to the section defines elector and mentions the authority to whom the election petition should be presented and the manner in which it should be presented, namely, by the person making the petition, or by a person authorised in writing in this behalf by the per-son
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.