FAYAZ UDDIN Vs. MOHAMMAD ISNAIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an elector in the constituency in question and he has filed an election petition challenging the election of respondent 1, the returned candidate, on the grounds of corrupt practices covered under S. 123(3) and (4) of the Act from the Metropolitan Council Constituency No. 46, Qasabpura, Delhi in the election held on 5-2-1983.

(2.) In Para 6 of the petition, it is alleged that respondents 1 to 9 filed their nomination papers from the said Metropolitan Constituency as candidates. In addition to the said nine respondents, the two other persons namely Babu Lal and Om Prakash Vashisht were also duly nominated as candidates but they withdrew their nomination papers before the date of withdrawal. The allegations of corrupt practices are contained in para 13 and 17 of the petition. It is stated in paras 13 and 17 :

(3.) In the written statement filed by the returned candidate i.e. respondent 1, it was pleaded as a preliminary objection that the petition was liable to be dismissed for non- compliance with S. 82(b) of the Act. It is stated that Om Prakash who is also known as Om Prakash Sawhney was a candidate in the said election. He filed his nomination papers and his nomination papers were accepted and he thus became one of the duly nominated candidates in the election in dispute. Later on the said Om Prakash withdrew his candidature before the date of withdrawal and was appointed by the returned candidate as an election agent and he was the election-in-charge of the said respondent. Allegations of corrupt practices have been made in the petition against the said Om Prakash who was a candidate in the said election but he has not been impleaded as a respondent as required under the mandatory provisions of S. 82(b) of the Act. The petition was liable to be dismissed on this short ground.