VIVEK RAGHUNATH PANDIT Vs. HITENDRA VISHNU THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Applicant / Original Respondent.

(2.) This Application is taken out by the applicant / original respondent, which is in the form of objections to the maintainability of this petition, in the form in which it is presented to this Court. Many contentions are raised by the counsel for the Applicant / Original Respondent. However, Mr. Aney, Senior Counsel, restricted himself to paragraph 4 of this Application, wherein he has raised objection under Section 82 of The Representation of the People Act, 1950 (for short "said Act"). However, he also drew my attention to the prayer clause (d) of the petition and provisions of Section 98 of the Act, and contended that since all those who contested election at the relevant time i.e. two persons named in paragraph 4 of his Application, viz. Mr. Sukhdev Jairam Khairnar and Ms. Jayashree Uday Samant, have not been joined in this election petition, the petition is liable to be dismissed, and, there is no option left.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner contended that prayer clause (d) of the petition is a residuary prayer or a consequential prayer but in the main petition the petitioner has not created any ground for granting any relief to him that if the election of the respondent is declared void, he should be declared elected. He therefore contended that the objection raised by the applicant / original respondent is based on misreading of the provisions of Sections 82, 86, 98 and 99 of the said Act.