D.K.Mahajan, J.

1. In this petition, the defeated candidate has called in question the election of respondent No. 1, Gurdas Singh Badal, from Fazilka Parliamentary constituency. The other respondents are Harnuman Das, Thandu Ram, Doonger, Pirthi Raj, Bhagrawat and Yog Raj, who were the other candidates in the election. The last two are S. Parkash Singh Badal, the then Chief Minister of Punjab, and Shri A. S. Pooni, I. A. S., Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepore, who was the returning officer. A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and to that reply, replication has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. No reply has been filed on behalf of Shri Parkash Singh Badal, and Shri A. S. Pooni. On the other hand, they have preferred two applications, Civil Miscellaneous Nos. 25-E and 26-E of 1971, praying that they cannot be impleaded as respondents in the election petition.

2. The case was fixed for today to determine the preliminary objections raised by respondents No. 1, Gurdas Singh Badal. These preliminary objections are as follows:-

-

1. That the petition, along with the enclosures is not verified in accordance with law.

2. That the allegations in the petition regarding illegal and corrupt practices alleged to have been committed during the election are wholly vague, and therefore, liable to be struck down.

3. That the petitioner has not set out the material particulars which legally entitled him to have an inspection of the ballot boxes and other papers connected with the election or to claim a recount of the votes polle Kamaraja Nadar V/s. Kunju Thevar, AIR 1958 SC 687 at the election.

4. The petition is bad for misjoinder of respondents 8 and 9, Shri Parkash Singh Badal and Shri A. S. Pooni.

3. The first contention that has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is about the impleading of respondents 8 and 9, Shri Parkash Singh Badal and Shri A. S. Pooni. In this connection, reliance has been placed on the scheme of the Act and the contention is that no relief is claimed and can be claimed against these persons, they are neither necessary nor proper parties. It is also maintained that in an election dispute the candidates to the election are necessary and proper parties because the relief that an Election Court can give is regarding the validity of the election; in other words (1) as to whether the election is valid or void and (2) whether the defeated candidate should be declared as the returned candidate. On the other hand, there are authorities, which have taken the view that the returning officer is a proper party to an election petition. Reference need be made to Gidwani Choithram V/s. Agnani Thakurdas (1951) 1 ELR 194, Dwijendra Lal V/s. Harekrishna AIR 1963 Cal 218, H. R. Gokhale V/s. Bharucha, AIR 1969 Bom 177 and K. T. Kosalram V/s. Dr. Santhosham, AIR 1969 Mad 116. On the question of the impleading of Shri Parkash Singh Badal, the only reported decision is of the Assam High Court in Amjad Ali V/s. B. C. Barua, AIR 1958 Assam 17. The question as to whether persons, who are not candidates should be permitted to be impleaded as proper parties is a fundamental question and as there is no decision of this Court, it is proper that this matter is considered thoroughly, particularly when there are certain observations of the Supreme Court in Ram Sewak yadav V/s. Hussian Kamil Kidwai, AIR 1964 SC 1249, which have to be considered.

4. The learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the other preliminary objections should be settled after the preliminary objection referred to above, has been determined by a larger Bench.

5. I, therefore, direct that the persons be laid before my Lord the Chief Justice for constituting a Full Bench to decide the fourth objection.

ORDER OF THE FULL BENCH

D.K.Mahajan, J.

6 I have gone through the judgments prepared by my learned brothers Pandit and Narula, JJ. With utmost respect and with due deference to my learned brother Pandit, J., I have not been able