BASANTILAL RATANLAL JAIN Vs. UMASHANKAR MULJIBHAI TRIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 116a of the: Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order of the Election tribunal, Ratlam, dismissing under Sub-section (3) of Section 90 of the Act the election petition filed by the petitioner Basantila] against the election of respondent No. 1, Umashanbai" Trivedi to the Lok Sabha from 36, Mandsaur parliamentary Constituency, on the ground that Vimal Kumar Chordia, a candidate against whom allegations of corrupt practice had been made in the petition, had not been made a party respondent.

(2.) FACTS relevant for purposes of this appeal may shortly be stated as follows: in the last general elections to the Lok Sabha from the 36, Mandsaur parliamentry Constituency the respondents Umashankar Trivedi, Dr. Raghubir Singh and Virendra Singh were the contesting candidates. Along with the aforesaid contesting candidates, Vimal Kumar Chordia and some others had also filed their nomination papers; but they had all withdrawn their candidatures before the appointed' date. In the ensuring poil, Umashankar Trivedi obtained a majority of valid votes. He was therefore, declared elected on 27-2-1962. The petitioner, who was a voter in the said constituency, filed an election petition challenging the election of respondent No. 1 Umashankar Trivedi, the 'returned candidate', inter alia, on the ground that he, his agents or other persons with his consent, had arranged meetings, used slogans, showed posters, distributed leaflets and played gramophone records to make appeal in the name of Hindu religion for the furtherance of the propects of the result of the election of respondent No. 1, and to prejudicially affect the result of the election of respondent No. 2 (see paragraph 6 (i) of the petition ). While stating the full particulars of the alleged corrupt practice in annexure No. 3 of Schedule I to the petition, he stated that 'shri Vimal Kumar Chord'ia in a largely attended meeting at Shamgarh appealed to the masses that -. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . The petitioner made the contesting candidates, including the returned candidate, party respondents. to the petition but did not join Vimal Kuma? Chordia against whom allegations of corrupt practice had been made in the aforesaid schedule.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1, Umashankar Trivedi, the 'returned candidate' filed his written statement on 27-7-1962 without raising any specific objection therein that the petition was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of Vimal Kumar Chordia, however, on 12-11-1962, after the issue had been framed the applied for the dismissal of the election petition, cm the ground that, in so far as the petitioner having alleged corrupt practices against Laxmi-narayan Pandey, Sunderlal Patwa, champalai Arya, Mohan Singh, Mohanlal Malawada, Vimal Kumar Chordia and basantilal Sharma, who were candidates at the election held in February 1962 sind as such necessary parties to the petition under Clause (b) of Section 82 of the Act, had failed to join them as party respondents to the petition, it was liable to be dismissed under Sub-section (3) of Section 90 of the Act. The petitioner by his reply dated 13-11-62, inter alia, contended that the aforesaid persons were not candidates at tho election from the parliamentary constituency in question, and were therefore not necessary parties to the petition, and that even if they were, there was no law which enjoined that they should be made parties. The objection was dismissed by the Tribunal by its order dated 14. 11. 1962 on the ground that the persons whose non-joinder was alleged to be in violation of Clause (b) of Section 82 of the Act 'were not candidates with respect to election to mandsaur parliamentary constituency'.