( 1 ) SRI Nardev has filed this appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 -- hereinafter called the Act -- against a judgment and order of the Election Tribunal, aligarh rejecting his election petition.

( 2 ) THE facts, relevant for the purpose of the present appeal, lie within a narrow compass. The appellant along with Joti Saroop, the first respondent, and two others, offered themselves as candidates for election as member of the Lok Sabha from 76 Hathras Parliamentary Constituency at the last general election. At the election the first respondent secured the highest number of votes and was declared duly elected. Thereupon the appellant who had secured the second highest number of votes filed an election petition before the Election Commission, challenging the election of respondent No. 1. In this petition, the appellant besides claiming a declaration that the election of respondent No. 1 was void, claimed a further declaration that he, [the appellant), had been duly elected. That petition was in due course referred to the Election Tribunal, Aligarh, for trial.

( 3 ) IN his election petition the appellant challenged the validity of the election of the first respondent on a number of grounds concerning the commission of corrupt practices by the first respondent, and his agents, palrokars and workers with his consent and knowledge -- especially tone Sri B. P. Maurya who was himself a candidate at the fast general election from the 77 aligarh Parliamentary Constituency. The first respondent denied all those allegations of corrupt practices. In addition he took a preliminary objection that as corrupt practices were alleged to have been committed by Sri B. P. Mauriya -- who as stated earlier was himself a candidate at the election -- he was necessary party to the election petition tinder Section 82 (b) of the Act, and as he had not been impleaded as a respondent, the petition was liable to dismissal in timine.

( 4 ) ON behalf of the appellant a written reply was filed stating that such an objection was misconceived, and farther that as it could only be taken by the leave of the Tribunal and as the said leave had not been obtained. It could not be allowed to be raised. It was further stated that as sri B. P. Maurya was not a candidate for election from the 76-Hathras Parliamentary constituency, it was not necessary to implead him under Section 82 (b) of the Act. The Election tribunal, however, sustained the preliminary objection and dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal.

( 5 ) SRI S. C. Khare, learned counsel for the appellant, at the very outset of his argument, conceded-- as wa thought he was bound to do -- that if Sri B. P. Maurya could be held to be any other candidate within the meaning of Section 82 (b) of the Act, then the petition would have to be held to have been rightly dismissed. He however strenuously contended that Sri B. P. Maurya was not suth a candidate and hence the preliminary objection was wrongly allowed. The sole point falling for our consideration, therefore, is whether, in the circumstances aforementioned, sri B. P. Maurya was a candidate under Section 82 (b) of the Act. As the answer to this question depends upon the construction of some provisions of the Act -- particularly Section 82 -- we shall begin our discussion by quoting Section 82. The said section runs thus; "parties to the petition.-- A petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition (a) where the petitioner, in addition to claiming a declaration that the election of alt or any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, alt 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. "

( 6 ) AS the appellant in his election petition, besides c