GANESH RAMCHANDRA NAIK Vs. SITARAM BHOIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of the chamber summons taken out by respondent Nos. 10, 11 and 12 in the Election petition for deletion of their names from the election petition.

(2.) DR. Chandrachud, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the said respondent Nos. 10, 11 and 12 submits that the said respondents are not necessary parties in the election petition. According to the learned Additional Solicitor General, section 82 of Representation of Peoples Act makes the provision about the parties to the election petition and he submits that the respondent Nos. 10, 11 and 12 do not fall in that category. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in (Jyoti Basu and others v. Debi Ghosal and others), A. I. R. 1982 S. C. 983 and (B. Sundara Rami Reddy v. Election Commission of India and others), 1991 Supp (2) S. C. C. page 624.

(3.) THE chamber summons is opposed by the learned Counsel for the election petitioner and he submits that in view of the averments made in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 of the election petition, the respondent Nos. 10, 11 and 12 have rightly been impleaded as parties in the election petition and they do not deserve to be deleted from array of parties. In support of his submission. Mr. Oak, the learned Counsel for the election petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in (Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore), A. I. R. 1964 S. C. 1545.