ORDER :

Nani Tagia, J.

1. Heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. H. Lampu, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. A. Apang, learned Sr. counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. This is an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 86 (1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, 'Act of 1951') seeking dismissal of the Election petition for non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 81 & 82 of the Act of 1951.

3. At the outset, it is submitted by the learned Senior counsel Mr. P.K. Tiwari that though this application under Section 86 (1) of the Act of 1951 has been filed seeking dismissal of the election petition for non compliance of provisions of Section 81 & 82 of the Act of 1951, the applicant would not press this application for dismissal for non compliance of Section 81; rather the applicant would seek dismissal of the election petition under Section 86 (1) for non compliance of Section 82 of the Act of 1951 only.

4. The applicant is a returned candidate as Member of Legislative Assembly (for short, 'MLA') from 45th Hayuliang (ST) Assembly Constituency in the election held in the year, 2019 in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The respondent No. 1 has filed a Election Petition being Election Petition No. 03 (AP) 2019 calling in question the election of the applicant as an MLA of 45th Hayuliang (ST) Assembly Constituency and seeks declaration that the election of the applicant as an MLA, 45th Hayuliang (ST) Assembly Constituency be declared as void on the ground of improper acceptance of her nomination as provided under Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Act of 1951. In the Election petition filed, apart from the applicant who is the returned candidate, the Returning Officer of 45th Hayuliang (ST) Assembly Constituency have also been arrayed as respondent No. 2. The applicant, therefore, has filed this instant application for dismissal of the Election Petition under Section 86 (1) of the Act of 1951 for non-compliance of Section 82 which provides that the petitioner shall join as respondent to his petition where the petitioner, in addition to claiming 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.

5. In the light of the above, the applicant contends that since the respondent No. 1/Election Petitioner, apart from seeking a declaration that the election of the applicant as an MLA from 45th Hayuliang (ST) Assembly Constituency is void has further sought for a declaration that the respondent No. 1/Election petitioner be declared duly elected from the said Assembly Constituency, the Election petitioner in his Election petition ought to have made only the contesting candidates of 45th Hayuliang (ST) Assembly Constituency as respondent(s). By making the Returning Officer of 45th Hayuliang (ST) Assembly Constituency as respondent No. 2 in the Election Petition, the Election Petition filed by respondent No. 1 does not comply with the provisions of Section 82 of the Act of 1951 and the same is liable to be dismissed under Section 86(1) of the Act of 1951. In support of his contention, the learned Sr. counsel for the applicant has relied on a decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B. Sundara Rami Reddy Vs. Election Commission of India & Ors., reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 624. In Paragraph-3 & 4 thereof, it has been held as follows:-

"3. ....Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 specifies the persons who are required to be joined as respondents to any election petition. Under this provision the returned candidate is a necessary party as a respondent and where relief for a declaration is claimed that the election petitioner, or any other candidate be duly elected, all the contesting candid