K S ESHWARAPPA Vs. H M CHANDRASHEKARAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Interlocutory Application-I. A. II, the first respondent has prayed for the dismissal of the Election Petition (hereinafter referred to as "the petition") on the ground that the petitioner has not complied with the provisions of Section 82 of the Representation of the People act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). The said application is resisted by the petitioner.

(2.) THE minimal facts that may be required for the disposal of this application may be stated as hereunder:

(3.) SRI Suman, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent-applicant, in support of the prayer that the petition is liable to be dismissed, strongly submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 86 of the Act as the petition does not comply with the provisions of Section 82 of the act. Elaborating this submission, he pointed out that since respondents 9 and 10 are not required to be joined as party respondents in terms of Section 82 of the Act, the joinder of respondents 9 and 10 as parties to the petition must be held as not complying with Section 82 of the Act and, therefore, the petition is liable to be rejected in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 86 of the act. According to him, since Section 82 of the Act, in express terms, provides as to who can be joined as respondents to the petition, it is not permissible for the petitioner to join any person other than those referred to in Section 82 of the Act and consequently, joinder of persons other than those referred to in Section 82 of the Act is fatal to the petition in view of sub-section (1) Section 86 of the Act. He submitted that the provisions of Section 82 and 86 of the Act are mandatory in nature and for non-compliance of Section 82 of the Act, the petition is liable to be rejected at the threshold itself. He also submitted that the defect in the petition cannot even be waived by a party to the petition; and that being the principle governing the election Law, the provisions of Sections 82 and 86 must be strictly construed. In support of his submissions, Sri Suman relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of MOHAN raj vs SURENDRA KUMAR; UDHAV SINGH vs M. R. SCINDIA; b. SUNDARA RAMI REDDY vs ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA; subhan KHAN vs J. H. PATEL; and V. NARAYANASWAMY vs C. P. THIRUNAVUKKARASU.