KRISHAN CHANDER Vs. RAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the last general elections to the Haryana Vidhan Sabha held on the 11th of March, 1972, eight candidates contested from the Karnal Constituency. The following day when the counting took place the respondent Shri Ram Lal was declared elected having secured the highest number of votes as detailed below: Shri Ram Lal 17, 719 Smt. Shanti Devi 16, 857 Shri Balwant Singh 1,602 Shri Piyare Lal 1,243 Shri Kali Ram 1,203 Shri Kalu Ram 616 Shri Randhe Sham 542 Shri Kashmira Singh 180

(2.) SHRI Kishan Chander, the petitioner before me, one of the electors in the Constituency, has challenged the election of the respondent Shri Ram Lal on the allegations, inter alia, that the respondent, his election agent and other persons with his consent had committed various corrupt practices detailed in the petition. Besides contesting the petition and denying allegations of corrupt practices etc. , the successful candidate Shri Ram Lal, who is the sole respondent in petition, has taken some preliminary objections, the first and foremost of which is that the petitioner's petition has to be dismissed under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 82 (d) of the Act, as various persons against whom the allegations of corrupt practices have been made, including Sarvashri Piyare Lal, Kali Ram, Kalu Ram and Kashmira Singh, who had themselves contested the election, and comrade Ram Piara have not been impleaded, though they were necessary parties. The petitioner in his replication, however, maintained that the returned candidate Shri Ram Lal alone was required to made party and it was not necessary to implead any other candidate as the allegations of various corrupt practices were levelled against the successful candidate Shri Ram Lal and not against any other candidate, though some the persons had been named as his agents or those who had acted with his consent. On these pleadings, B. R. Tuli, J. , before whom the matter came up during vacation, framed the following two preliminary issues, on which the petitioner personally and the respondent's learned counsel have addressed arguments before me at length: 1. Whether it was necessary for the petitioner to implead Sarvashri Ram Piara, Piyara Lal, Kali Ram, Kalu Ram and Kashmira Singh as parties to the petition in view of the allegations in paras 9, 10, 11, 12 and 20 of the election petition? 2. If Issue No. 1 is found in favour of the respondent, what is the effect of non-impleadment of those persons as respondents to the petition? Issue No. 1:

(3.) THE provision regarding the parties to an election petition is contained in Section 82 of the Act. It provides: "82. Parties to the petition.--A petitioner shall join as respondent to his petition (a) Where the petitioner, in addition to claiming a declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidate 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. "