Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.—Petitioner before this Court was elected as Pradhan of the village Chutka Gaon as per the results of the elections declared on 28.10.2010. Respondent No. 1 Ram Sanehi, who was the defeated candidate, filed an election petition under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, which was registered as Election Petition No. 1 of 2010.

The reliefs prayed for in the election petition are as follows:

1- ;g fd mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa izfri{kh la[;k&1 dk pquko voS/k ?kksf"kr djrs gq, jn~n ?kksf"kr djrs gq, muds LFkku ij ;kph dks pquko esa fot;h ?kksf"kr fd;k tkosA

2- ;g fd vykok ;k ctk; nknjlh etdwj okyk ds oknh ftl fdlh Hkh nhxj nknjlh dk eq'rgd o utj vnkyr djkj ik;k tk; rks mldh Hkh fMdzh cgd oknh f[kykQ izfroknhx.k lkfnj Qjek;h tk;A

3- ;g fd okn O;; rFkk 'kqYd vf/koDrk oknh dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyok fn;k tk;A

2. The petitioner on service of the notice filed application dated 17th June, 2011 stating therein that the election petition suffers from the vice of non-joinder of necessary party, inasmuch as three other persons, who were candidates in the said election, have not been made a party as required by Rule 3 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994. It was, therefore, contended that in absence of necessary parties, the election petition itself was liable to be dismissed.

3. Objections were filed to the application by the election petitioner stating therein that the petitioner has impleaded the elected candidate and it was not necessary to implead other persons.

4, The Election Tribunal by means of the order dated 12.7.2011 held that the election petition did not suffer from the vice of non-joinder of the necessary parties. It has been held that the elected candidate had been made party and that the objection taken by the elected Pradhan had no substance.

5. Not being satisfied the petitioner filed a revision under Section 12-C(6) of the Act, which has been dismissed as not maintainable. It is against these two orders that the present writ petition has been filed.

6. So far as the order passed by the revisional authority is concerned, this Court may record that a right to file revision has been provided under Section 12-C(6) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act only against the final order passed in the election petition. Against the order of the Election Tribunal dated 23.7.2011 in the facts of the case revision was not maintainable and it has rightly been dismissed as such.

7. However, since the legality of the order dated 23.7.2011 has also been challenged in the present petition, this Court will now proceed to examine the merits of the order dated 23.7.2011.

8. The contention raised on behalf of the parties revolves around the Rule 3(2) of 1994 Rules, which reads as follows:

"3. Election Petition.—(1)........

(2) The person whose election is questioned and where the petition claims that the petitioner or any other candidates shall be declared elected in place of such person, every unsuccessful candidate shall be made a respondent to the application."

9. According to the petitioner since in the facts of the case both the reliefs have been prayed for i.e. declaring the election of the petitioner as invalid and thereafter to declare the election petitioner as elected, every unsuccessful candidate had to be made a party. Counsel for the petitioner Sri S.K. Verma submits that non-impeadment of necessary party is fatal to the election petition. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Patangrao Kadam v. Prithviraj Sayajirao Yadav Deshmukh and others; (2001) 3 SCC 594 (Para 12), Gadnis Bhawani Shankar V. v. Faleiro Eduardo Martinho; AIR 2000 SC 2502 and Ram Sukh v. Dinesh Aggarwal; (2009) 10 SCC 541 (Para 20). He further explains that unsuccessful candidates will mean every candidate who had filed his nomination in the process of election and had not withdrawn the same up to the last date for withdrawal of the nomination.

10. Ther