1. Heard.

2. One of the issues (No. 3) framed in the case is whether the Returning Officer is a proper party, if so effect?

3. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 raised objection in paragraph 19 of the written statement, which reads as under :
"That all the allegations in the petition are made against the Returning Officer that he has not fairly and impartially discharged his official duty. The petitioner also made the absurd allegations that the respondent No. 1 pressurized the Returning Officer during the counting. It is humbly submitted that the respondent No. 1 does not belong to a party, which has a government in Madhya Pradesh. The entire allegations of unfairness and favouritism during the counting were made against the returning officer. Therefore, though the Returning Officer is not a necessary party but a proper party in this Election Petition to answer and rebut the allegations made against him. Therefore, on this ground alone the petition is liable to be dismissed."

4. So far as joining of the parties especially Returning Officer in the election petition is concerned, law is well settled by the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal reported in AIR 1982 SC 983 . The Court took the view that the public policy and legislative wisdom both seem to point to an interpretation of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act , which does not permit the joining, as parties, of persons other than those mentioned in S.82 and S.86(4). The Court also in paragraph (12) considered the consequences if persons other than those mentioned in S.82 are permitted to be added as parties and held that the necessary consequences would be an unending, disorderly election dispute with no hope of achieving the goal contemplated by S.86 (6) of the Act. In the aforesaid premises, we reiterate the view taken by this Court in Jyoti Basu's case 1982 (1) SCC 691 and reaffirmed in the latter case of B. Sundara Rami Reddy v. Election Commission of India and we see no infirmity with the impugned judgment, requiring our interference under Art.136 of the Constitution of India. (Pages 15 and 16).

5. The Supreme Court in unequivocal terms has clarified that none may be joined as a party to the election petition otherwise than as provided by S.82 and S.86(4) of the Act. It follows that a person, who is not a candidate, may not be joined as a respondent to the election petition. The argument that though not under S.82 but under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, Returning Officer and other persons can be joined as parties to the petition was negatived and Chinnappa Reddy, J. speaking for the Court, observed :
"The question is not whether the Civil Procedure Code applies because it undoubtedly does, but only 'as far as may be' and subject to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act , 1951 and the Rules made thereunder. S.87(1) expressly says so. The question is whether the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code can be invoked to permit that which the does not. Obviously, the provisions of the Code cannot be so invoked."
He was further pleased to observe :
"Concepts familiar to Common Law and equity must remain strangers to Election Law unless statutorily embodied. A Court has no right to resort to them on considerations of alleged policy because policy in such matters, as those relating to the trial of election disputes, is what the Statute lays down. In the trial of the election disputes, Court is put in a strait jackets."
"It is clear that the contest of the election petition is designed to be confined to the candidates at the election. All others are excluded. The ring is closed to all except the petitioner and the candidate at the election. If suc