Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 and learned Counsels for the State Election Commission and for Respondent Nos. 4 to 7.

2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 11.7.2007 passed by Munsif 2nd Court, Saran in Election Case No. 6 of 2006 (Surya Narayan Rai v. The Chief Election Commissioner and Ors.) through which he has allowed the application for addition of Respondent No. 1 as the party to the election petition filed by him and also by other contesting candidate. The further prayer is to issue a mandamus commanding the respondents to discharge their legal obligation and to declare the Election Case No. 6 of 2006 as not maintainable since it suffers from non-joinder of necessary party within the time frame allowed in Rule 106 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006 .

3. The petitioner was a candidate for the post of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat, Raj Mukimpur in 2006 Gram Panchayat Election. The petitioner was declared as the successful candidate. The results of the election were published on 16.6.2006. Respondent No. 1, Surya Narayan Rai, one of the defeated candidates thereafter filed an Election Case No. 6 of 2006 on 29.6.2006 with a prayer to declare the election of the petitioner on the post of Mukhiya as invalid on account of bungling in counting of votes by Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 and further prayer was made for a direction for recounting of votes and to declare the person who receives maximum vote as elected. The petitioner appeared in the case and filed written statement on 9.8.2006 in which he also raised the issue of maintainability of election petition on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party as one Chhote Lal Rai, the proposed opposite party who was also one of the contesting candidate to the said party, was not made party to the election petition. Thereafter on 18.7.2006 an application for amendment in the election petition was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for adding the said Chhote Lal Rai as opposite party in the case. The said Chhote Lal Rai also filed an application on 25.7.2006 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading him as opposite party in the case claiming that he was one of the candidates for the post of Mukhiya in the said election and thus he was necessary party. The petitioner filed his objection against the said applications stating that the applications were not maintainable. After hearing the parties the learned Munsif 2nd Court, Saran allowed the said applications by the impugned order dated 11.7.2007.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 137(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 it is provided that a petitioner shall join as respondent to his petition, where the petitioner in addition to claiming declaration of the election of all or any of the returned candidates as void, claims further that he himself or any other candidate should be declared elected, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner. He also refers to Rule 106 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006 Sub- rule (2) of which makes a similar provision regarding the parties to the petition and Sub-rule (1) whereof provides that any election petition under Section 137 of the Act must be filed within 30 days of the declaration of the Election result.

5. On the basis of the above two provisions it is argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the application for amendment was filed by Respondent No. 1 on 18.7.2006 more than 30 days after the results were published i.e., 16.6.2006, and therefore since an application on the said date would be barred by limitation, hence the addition of parties also would not be allowed after the expiry of the period of 30 days provided for the filing of any election petition. In support of the aforesaid proposition learned Counsel relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Ve