SHRINIWAS Vs. RUKMINI RAMAN PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of M. P. NO. 194 of 1957 and also the cross-objection filed by the first respondent Shri Rukmini raman Pratap Singh in the matter of costs awarded by the Tribunal below.

(2.) IN the recent elections to the Legislative Assembly the appellant Shriniwas was a candidate for election along with six others. Of the candidates, the first respondent Shri Rukmini Raman Pratap Singh wag elected, having polled 6,835 votes as against 3,000 odd of the next best polled. We need not mention the number of the votes obtained by the other candidates, except to say that shrinivas obtained 3,960 votes and one Shri Manbodh Singh, who is not a party to this appeal and was also not joined in the election petition before the Tribunal below, obtained 3,819 votes. After the results were declared Shriniwas filed an election petition for the following reliefs: (a) That the election of the respondent be declared void. (b) The costs of the petition be awarded to the petitioner. (c) Any other relief to which the petitioner may be entitled.

(3.) THE petition was heard by the Election Tribunal appointed by the Election commission and was dismissed on the 25th September 1957 on the short ground that Manbodh Singh, whose name has been mentioned above, was necessary party and had not been joined. In doing so, the Election Tribunal purported to act under Section 90 (3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereafter called the Act ). According to the Tribunal the defect was the non-joinder of Shri manbodh Singh, against whom a corrupt practice had been alleged. No doubt, under Section 82 of the Act it is provided as follows : 'a petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition- (a) Where the petitioner, in addition to claiming a declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner, and where no such further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates; and (b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition. '. The contention of the answering respondent before the Tribunal was that inasmuch as corrupt practice had been alleged against Shri Manbodh Singh he should have been joined. Reliance was thus placed upon the provisions of Section 90, Sub- section (3), which provides as follows: "the Tribunal shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the previsions of. . . . . Section 82. . . . . . notwithstanding that it has not been dismissed by the Election Commissioner under Section 85". Reference at this stage may also be made to another section of the Act which provides in the list of corrupt practices the following :