PRINCIPAL SUHAIL LOKHANDWALA Vs. MOHAN VISHNU RAWALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Chamber Summons is taken out by Respondent No.5 for the Returning Officer of South Central Lok Sabha constituency, Mumbai for deleting/stricking out his name from the array of respondents.

(2.) The aforesaid election petition is filed by the petitioner principally against respondent No.1 challenging the election of respondent No.1 from Mumbai South Central Lok Sabha constituency. The grounds for challenging the election are non-compliance of certain provisions of the Representation of the People Act and Rules framed thereunder etc.

(3.) When the notice of the election petition came to be served upon the respondents, this Chamber Summons is taken out by respondent No.5 and it is contended that Returning Officer is not a necessary party to this petition and cannot be joined having regard to the provisions of S.82 of the Representation of the people Act as well as S.99 thereof. Mr. Govilkar appearing for the Returning Officer submits that this point is concluded by the decision of this Court in Chamber Summons No.1079 of 1995 and chamber Summons No.1100 of 1995 in Election Petition No.23 of 1995 decided by Vaidyanath, J. on 4th December 1995. In this judgment the decisions of the Supreme Court in Jyoti Basu vs. Debi Chosal, 1982 AIR(SC) 983 and in Sundara Rami Reddy vs. Election Commission of India, 1991 Supp2 SCC 624, have been referred to and relied upon. The Supreme Court has considered the relevant provisions of S.82 of the Representation of the People Act and came to the conclusion that to such a petition the Returning Officer is not a necessary party. Mr. Govilkar appearing for the Returning Officer states that the Chamber Summons should be directed only against the petitioner. Mr.Sawant appearing for the petitioner submits to the orders of the court. Mr.Chinoy appearing for respondent No.1 brought to the notice of the court that Chamber Summons has not been served upon respondent No.1. However, he has no objection for passing the orders in the Chamber Summons and since the Chamber Summons is not directed against respondents No.1 to 4, he submitted that it is not necessary for him to make any submission in this behalf.