Only candidates specified in Section 82 of Representation of People Act can be parties to election petitions; impleading non-candidate officials despite corrupt practice allegations is misjoinder, remedied by striking out parties, not dismissal.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

01. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties with reference to preliminary issue No.1. I have also perused record of the case.

02. Issue No. 1, which falls for determination, reads as under:

Whether there is mis-joinder of parties? If so, to what effect? OPR 10.

03. According to the learned counsel for respondent No. 10, there is mis-joinder of parties in the present case. He has submitted that the petitioner has not only impleaded the contesting candidates as the parties to the instant petition, but he has also impleaded as respondents the other parties including the officers and officials against whom allegations of impropriety have been leveled in the present election petition. The aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the respondent No.10 is based upon the interpretation of provisions contained in Section 82 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter to be referred to as “Act of 1951”), which deals with the parties, to an election petition. It has been contended that as per Section 82 of the Act of 1951, only the contesting candidates have to be impleaded as parties to an election petition. In this regard, learned counsel for respondent No.10 has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar Vs. Roop Singh Rathore and anr. 1963 SCC Online SC 129, Joyti Basu Vs. Debi Ghosal , 1982 (1) SCC 691 and B.S. Yadiyurappa vs. Mahalingappa , 2002 (1) SCC 301.

04. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner on the other hand has contended that as per the provisions contained in Section 87 of the Act of 1951, the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to the election petitions tried by the High Court and, therefore, all necessary and proper parties to the petition have to be impleaded as the parties. It has further been contended that in terms of sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 99 of the Act of 1951, all persons, who have been proved at the trial to have been guilty of any corrupt practice, have to be named, therefore, it is not only the contesting candidates, who are to be impleaded as parties to the election petition but even those officers and officials, against whom there are allegations of corrupt practice, have to be impleaded as parties to the election petition. In this regard, the learned Senior counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of K.T. Kosalram Vs. Dr. Santhosham and Ors. AIR 1969 Madras 116.

05. In order to determine the merits of the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, it would be apt to notice the provisions of the Act of 1951, which deal with the issue relating to joinder of parties to an election petition. The same are reproduced as under:

“S.82. Parties to the petition.

A petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition—

(a)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, 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. Explanation.—An order of the High Court dismissing an election petition under this sub-section