NARDEV Vs. JOTI SAROOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Nardev has filed this appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 -- hereinafter called the Act -- against a judgment and order of the Election Tribunal, Aligarh rejecting his election petition.

(2.) The facts, relevant for the purpose of the present appeal, lie within a narrow compass. The appellant along with Joti Saroop, the first respondent, and two others, offered themselves as candidates for election as member of the Lok Sabha from 76 Hathras Parliamentary Constituency at the last general election. At the election the first respondent secured the highest number of votes and was declared duly elected. Thereupon the appellant who had secured the second highest number of votes filed an election petition before the Election Commission, challenging the election of respondent No. 1. In this petition, the appellant besides claiming a declaration that the election of respondent No. 1 was void, claimed a further declaration that he, [the appellant), had been duly elected. That petition was in due course referred to the Election Tribunal, Aligarh, for trial.

(3.) In his election petition the appellant challenged the validity of the election of the first respondent on a number of grounds concerning the commission of corrupt practices by the first respondent, and his agents, palrokars and workers with his consent and knowledge -- especially tone Sri B. P. Maurya who was himself a candidate at the fast general election from the 77 Aligarh Parliamentary Constituency. The first respondent denied all those allegations of corrupt practices. In addition he took a preliminary objection that as corrupt practices were alleged to have been committed by Sri B. P. Mauriya -- who as stated earlier was himself a candidate at the election -- he was necessary party to the election petition tinder Section 82 (b) of the Act, and as he had not been impleaded as a respondent, the petition was liable to dismissal in timine'.