DINESH PANDEY Vs. BHARAT MATHURAWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for quashment of the order dated 10/01/2013 passed by IX ADJ, Indore in Election Petition No.04/2010 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 441 (4) (a) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (which shall be referred herein after as "Act") was dismissed, present petition has been filed.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that notification was issued by the State Government for the Election of Corporater, Mayor etc. of the Municipal Corporation, Indore. In compliance of that nominations were required to be filled -in. Last date for filing the nomination was 26/11/2009. Petitioner and respondent No.1 also submitted their nomination for contesting the election of Corporater from Ward No.15. Objections were submitted by the respondent No.1 on 27/11/2009 which were rejected vide order dated 01/11/2009. Thereafter, election took place and 'petitioner was declared as elected (Corporater) on 15/12/2009. Notification was issued in this regard on 29/12/2009. Thereafter Election Petition was filed by the respondent No. 1 on 20/01/2010 wherein validity of the election of petitioner as Corporater was challenged. The Election Petition was contested by the petitioner. After framing of issues and also after recording of evidence of respondent No.1 petitioner filed an application under Section 441 (4) (a) of the Act wherein it was prayed that respondent No.1 be directed to implead all the candidates as party to the petition. The application was opposed by the respondent No.1. After hearing the parties learned Court below dismissed the application against which the present petition has been filed.

(3.) MR . AK. Sethi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set -aside. It is submitted that since the prayer is in the petition that election of petitioner as Corporater be set -aside and respondent No.1 be declared as Corporater, therefore, all the contesting candidates were necessary party and required to be impleaded as party. Learned counsel draws the attention of this Court on Section 441 (4) (a) of the Act which reads as under : -