Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Ananda Chandra Behera, J.
Arun Kumar Sahoo - Petitioner
Versus
Pratyusha Rajeswari Singh - Opposite Party
I.A. No.93 of 2025, Arising out of ELEPT No.9 of 2024
Decided On : 21-11-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. incorporation of parties in election petitions (Para 1) |
| 2. opposition's claims and reasoning for opposition (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. rule regarding petition handling and joinder (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's rationale for dismissal of the application (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. final order and dismissal of the application (Para 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT :
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.
1. This Interlocutory Application under Rule 27(a) of Chapter VI, Part-II, Volume-I of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948 has been filed by the respondent No.1 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024 praying for the incorporation of the name of the Respondent No.2 of the Election Petition No.9 of 2024 i.e. Hemanta Kumar Prusty as Opp. Party No.2 in I.A. Nos.113,114 & 117 of 2024 arising out of the Election Petition No.9 of 2024 stating therein that, when, Hemanta Kumar Prusty is the respondent No.2 in the Election Petition No.9 of 2024, then, he (Hemanta Kumar Prusty) is required to be arrayed as Opp. Party No.2 in the I.As. vide I.A. Nos.113,114 & 117 of 2024. As by the time of filing of the above I.As vide I.A. Nos.113,114 & 117 of 2024 on dated 11.11.2024, the respondent No.2 (Hemanta Kumar Prusty) was not impleaded as respondent No.2 in the Election Petition No.9 of 2024, and he (Hemanta Kumar Prusty) was arrayed as respondent No.2 in the Election Petition No.9 of 2024 as per order dated 11.12.2024 passed in I.A. No.15 of 2024, for which, the respondent No.2 in the Election Petition No.9 of 2024 was not arrayed as Opp.Party No.2 in the I.A. Nos.113,114 and 117 of 2024 filed on dated 11.11.2024, but, he (Hemanta Kumar Prusty) is the necessary and proper party in the I.A. Nos.113,114 & 117 of 2024. Because, he (Hemanta Kumar Prusty) is empowered under law to participate in the hearing of the I.A. Nos.113,114 & 117 of 2024 by filing his reply.
Therefore, the said Hemanta Kumar Prusty (respondent No.2 in the Election Petition No.9 of 2024) is required to be impleaded as Opp. Party No.2 in the I.A. Nos.113,114 & 117 of 2024 and his name is required to be incorporated as Opp. Party No.2 in the I.A. Nos.113,114 & 117 of 2024 on the basis of the order passed in this I.A. No.93 of 2025 for the same.
To which, the Election Petitioner in Election Petition No.9 of 2024 objected on the ground that,
“I.A. No.113 of 2024 was filed by the respondent No.1 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024 against her (Election Petitioner) praying for dismissal of the Election Petition No.9 of 2024 for non-submission of an affidavit in Form No.25 with the Election Petition in compliance to the mandate of Sub-Section (1) of Section 83 of the R.P. Act, 1951 read with Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, stating that, the allegations of corrupt practices have been alleged against the respondent No.1 in the Election Petition No.9 of 2024, for which, an affidavit in Form No.-25 was compulsorily required, but the same has not been filed.
The I.A. No.114 of 2024 was filed by the respondent No.1 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024 against her (Election Petitioner) praying for the rejection of the Election Petition No.9 of 2024 for non-compliance of Sub-section (3) of Section 81 and Sub-section (2) of Section 83 of the R.P Act, 1951 read with Order 7, Rule 14 of the CPC, 1908.
The I.A. No.117 of 2024 was filed by the respondent No.1 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024 against her (Election Petitioner) under Order 6, Rule 16 of the CPC praying for striking out Paragraph Nos. 7.A to 7.M from the pleadings of Election Petition No.9 of 2024.
Eight months after filing of I.A. Nos.113,114 & 117 of 2024 i.e. on 07.07.2025, the respondent No.1 of the Election Petition No.9 of 2024 filed this I.A. vide I.A. No.93 of 2025 praying for the impleadment of Hemanta Kumar Prusty as Opp. Party No.2 in I.A. Nos.113,114 & 117 of 2024 without indicating any lawful reason for his impleadment as party in I.A. Nos.113,114 & 117 of 2024. The I.A. No.93 of 2025 has been filed by the returned candidate i.e. respondent No.1 in E
AI
The court ruled that an application to add a party in election proceedings must demonstrate necessity for adjudication, and general laws do not apply when specific statutes govern election matters.
In election petitions, the provisions of the R.P. Act, 1951 prevail over the CPC for impleadment matters, and what cannot be done directly cannot be achieved indirectly.
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, re....
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.
Compliance with the provisions of the Representation of People Act, particularly Section 82, is mandatory for an election petition. Amendments that take the petition out of the mandatory provisions o....
Non-joinder of a candidate accused of corrupt practices in an election petition results in its mandatory dismissal under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Election petitions must contain precise and material facts, especially concerning alleged corrupt practices, as mandated by Section 83 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
Election disputes must comply strictly with statutory provisions regarding party joinder, as outlined in the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
