Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
Shiv Dayal and S. P. Bhargava, JJ.
VIDYA CHARAN SHUKLA - Appellant
Versus
G.P.TIWARI - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 209 Of 1962
Decided On : 08/24/1962
ELECTION LAW - ELECTION PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - JOINDER OF CONTESTING CANDIDATES AS RESPONDENTS - SECTION 82 OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 - INTERPRETATION - WHETHER JOINDER OF DEFEATED CANDIDATES AS RESPONDENTS RENDERS THE PETITION NOT MAINTAINABLE - HELD, NO.
Fact of the Case:
Vidya Charan Shukla, the petitioner, was elected to the House of the People from the Mahasamund constituency on the Congress ticket. His rival candidate, Khubchand Baghel, filed an Election Petition challenging the election on the ground of a corrupt practice. Shukla raised a preliminary objection that the petition was not maintainable as the other contesting candidates had also been made parties, which was in violation of Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the joinder of defeated candidates as respondents did not render the petition not maintainable. It interpreted Section 82 of the Act to mean that in cases where the petitioner claimed a further declaration that he or another candidate had been duly elected, all contesting candidates must be joined as respondents. However, in cases where no such further declaration was claimed, only the returned candidates were necessary parties. The court also noted that Section 90(4) of the Act gave every candidate the right to be joined as a respondent, even if not joined by the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the joinder of defeated candidates as respondents in an election petition rendered the petition not maintainable under Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 82 of the Act to mean that the joinder of defeated candidates as respondents was not prohibited and did not amount to non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the section. It held that the purpose of Section 82 was to lay down who were necessary parties in election petitions, and that the defeated candidates were not necessary parties in cases where no further declaration was claimed.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition filed by Vidya Charan Shukla, holding that the Election Petition was maintainable despite the joinder of defeated candidates as respondents.
( 1 ) IN the general elections held early this year Vidya Charan Shukla, the petitioner was returned to the House of the People from the Mahasamund constituency on the Congress ticket. He polled 56,664 votes. His rival candidates, Khubchand baghel respondent No. 2 (Praja Socialist Party) secured 53,872 indradeo Tandon respondent No. 3 (Republican Party) 9,138; Dharamjit Singh respondent No. 4 (Ram Rajya Parishad) 23,889; and Ramsingh respondent No. 5 (Jan Sangh)14,532 votes.
( 2 ) KHUBCHAND Baghel respondent No. 2 filed an Election. Petition challenging the aforesaid election on the ground of a corrupt practice --publication of a pamphlet published in the name of one Tikamchand Jain, allegedly containing false and defamatory statement in respect of Khubchand Baghel. For our purposes it is unnecessary to set out the allegations contained in the Election Petition. Suffice to reproduce the prayer in verbatim : the petitioner claims (i) a declaration that the election of the returned candidate Shri Vidya Charan Shukla respondent No. i is void; (2) any other relief that may in the circumstances of the case be deemed fit and proper. "
( 3 ) IN the Election Petition, besides Vidya Charan Shukla, all the other contesting candidates are also made parties. For the trial of that petition Mr. G. P. Tiwari, district Judge, Raipur (respondent No. 1) has been constituted the Election tribunal under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act' ). A copy of the said petition was sent by the election Commission to Vaidya Charan Shukla. He was also served with a notice for appearance before the said Tribunal. He entered appearance by counsel before the Tribunal on June 18, 1962.
( 4 ) ON July 13, 1962, instead of filing a writ statement for which that date was fixed, he raised a preliminary objection by an application that the Election Petition could not be proceeded with inasmuch as the other contesting candidates had also been made parties which amounted to "direct violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 82 of the Act". The contention was that the Election Petition could be instituted only against the returned candidate and it was not permissible to join any of the other contesting candidates because there was no further prayer that the petitioner or any other contesting candidate be declared duly elected. It was urged in the application that because of that defect the petition was not entertain-able and was liable to be dismissed under Section 90 (3) of the Act.
( 5 ) THE Election Tribunal by its order of the last mentioned date refused to entertain the objection just because it was raised merely by an application without a complete written statement being filed. However, it granted further time to present a written statement in which that objection could be taken and fixed august 6, 1962, for that purpose. Adjournment costs Rs. 25/-were awarded to the other side. Aggrieved by that order, Vidya Charan Shukla has filed this petition.
( 6 ) MR. Bobde relied on Kamaraja Nadar v. Kunju Thevar, 1959 SCR 583 : (AIR 1958 SC 687) where the Election Tribunal in M. R. Masani v. Election Tribunal, ranchi, Civil Appeal No. 48 of 1958 (See AIR 1958 SC 687 at p. 691) had refused to decide the preliminary objection earlier and had postponed its decision saying that it was essential to decide the case as a whole and not piece-meal inasmuch as there was no easy provision for remand if its view was not accepted by the appellate authority and the High Court had also refused to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. Their Lordships made the following observations : "we are of opinion that both the Election Tribunal and the High Court were wrong in the view they took. If the preliminary objection was not entertained and a decision reached thereupon, further proceedings taken in the Election Petition would mean a full fledged trial involving examination of a large number of witnesses
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
