( 1 ) THESE two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution raise the same identical important question of interpretation of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as amended up-to-date (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and consequently they were heard together and are being decided by one single judgment.

( 2 ) THE petitioners in both the petitions are the persons who presented election petitions to the election Commission under Section 81 of the Act. In both cases, the petitioners were unsuccessful candidates at the last election for the U. P. Legislative Assembly and they presented election petitions impleading as respondents in those petitions the successful candidates. In each of the two constituencies, there was one other candidate who had withdrawn his candidature under Section 37 of the Act by a notice in writing to the Returning Officer. In the election petitions there were allegations of corrupt practices having been committed by the individuals who had withdrawn their candidature, but they were not impleaded as respondents in the election petitions. The election petitions were referred by the Election Commission to Election Tribunals for trial under Section 86 of the Act without dismissing them under Section 85 of the Act. In both petitions, at certain stages, objections were taken before the Election Tribunals that the election petitions should be dismissed under Section 90 (3) of the Act on the ground that a candidate against whom allegations of corrupt practice had been made in the petitions had not been impleaded as a party to the election petitions so that there was non-compliance with the provisions of Section 82 (b) of the Act. These objections were allowed and the petitions were dismissed. In the election petition out of which Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 3140 of 1957 arises, an application was also made for amendment of the particulars by striking off the name of Dalip Singh, the person against whom allegations of corrupt practice had been made and who had not been impleaded as a party though he was a candidate who had withdrawn his candidature under Section 37 of the Act this application was dismissed before the dismissal of the petition. The present petitions under article 226 of the Constitution have been presented by the petitioners in the two election petitions challenging the correctness of the decisions of the Election Tribunals.

( 3 ) THE facts indicate that the main dispute before the Election Tribunals in both the cases was whether there had been non-compliance with the requirements of Section 82 (b) of the Act and whether as a result of that non-compliance the petitions have been rightly dismissed under section 90 (3) of the Act. Section 82 of the Act is as follows:

"a petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition (a) where the petitioner, in addition to claiming a 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 lias 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. " it is to be noticed that the expression used in Clause (b) of Section 82 of the Act is "any other candidate" without any qualifying words except the expression "against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition. " In both the cases, allegations of corrupt practice were made against the candidates who had withdrawn their candidature so that the qualification laid down in Section 82 (b) of the Act did exist. The words "any other candidate" without any other qualifying words are on the face of it wide enough to cover every person who has been a candidate at any time. The plain language of this section consequently, if read without reference to other provisions of the Act, lea