PANNALAL SHANTI SWAROOP Vs. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an election petition filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of the election of respondent No. 3. He has impleaded respondents 1, 2 and 4 viz. Chief Election Commissioner, Returning Officer, Vasai-61 and Superintendent of Police respectively as parties to the election petition. The first respondent, the Chief Election Commissioner, has filed an application dated 25-8-1995 to strike off the first respondent from the petition. The Returning Officer, respondent No. 2, has also filed a similar application for striking down his name and that application is numbered as Chamber Summons No. 1079 of 1995. Similar application is filed by Superintendent of Police, respondent No. 4, to delete him from the cause title of the petition and that application is numbered as Chamber Summons No. 1100 of 1995. The petitioner has filed reply opposing all the three applications. Heard the petitioner who is in person and the learned Counsels appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed the election petition challenging the election of respondent No. 3 who was elected from Vasai constituency to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly in the elections that was held on 26-2-1995. The petitioner is challenging the election of respondent No. 3 on the ground of corrupt practices. It is also alleged that respondents 1, 2 and 4 have not conducted the election in a free and proper manner and he has also alleged that these respondents have colluded with respondent No. 3 in conducting the election in question. As already stated respondents 1, 2 and 4 have filed applications for deleting them from the cause title of the petition on the ground that they are not necessary parties to the petition and their presence is not required for the disposal of the election petition.

(3.) THE petitioner who appeared in person contended that since he has made serious allegations about the conduct of election and collusion of respondents 1, 2 and 4 with respondent No. 3, these respondents are necessary parties and their presence is absolutely necessary for the disposal of the election petition. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 4 contended that the election Tribunal holding the trial of an election petition has limited jurisdiction and is bound by the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which does not give scope for impleading third parties to the petition who are not candidates in the election in question. The petitioner wants the election of respondent No. 3 to be set aside on the ground of corrupt practices. In such a case, only the returned candidate should be made as party, as provided in section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which provides that where the petitioner seeks that he or any other candidate should be declared as elected after setting aside the election of the returned candidate, then all the contesting candidates should be made as parties to the election petition. Section 82 does not provide for making any other person as party to an election petition.