JUDGMENT (1.) THIS is a joint application by Respondent No. 6, buddhadeb Bhattacharyya, minister-in-charge of Information and Publicity, Govt. of West Bengal, Respondent No. 7, "Mr. Jyoti Basu, Chief Minister of West Bengal, and Respondent No. 9, Hasim Abdul Halim, minister-in-Charge of the Legislative and judicial Department under Order 1 Rule 10 and -Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil procedure for striking out their names and for expunging the allegations against them from the Election Petition and other consequential reliefs including the dismissal of the Election Petition. (2.) THE Election Petition was filed by the petitioner, Debi Ghoshal, one of the defeated candidates on the 21st of February 1980, and thereafter from time to time the matter appeared before different Learned judges and ultimately before me and directions were given for filing Written statements. During that period the present application was made on the 21st of June, 1980 and after direction for filing affidavits were given the matter came up for hearing. The Learned Advocate General with J. Haldar appeared for the applicants and submitted that in view of provisions of section 82 the necessary parties are specified under the Representation of People Act 1951, and no other person other than those parties specified in the said section of the said Act can be made parties to an Election Petition. He also submitted that the provisions of section 86 (4) makes it clear that any candidate who has been left out by the petitioner to be joined as a party to the Election petition, can apply before the Court within a specified time for being added as party in the Election Petition and also section (99) (1) (a) (ii) read with the proviso thereto gives ample power to the Court at the time of passing an order after the conclusion of the trial of the election petition naming a person who has been proved at the trial to have been guilty of corrupt practices and who was not, a party to the election petition, after giving him notice to show cause and after giving him an opportunity to cross examine the witness who gave evidence against him and giving him further right to call evidence in his defence. Therefore, the learned Advocate General submitted that the said Act being a complete code in itself, it provides the parties who should be joined as Respondents in the election petition filed by the petitioner and if anyone candidate is left out or any person proved to be guilty of corrupt practices, he can also be named and brought into the proceedings, therefore the names of the persons who are not candidates cannot come under section 82 of the said Act should be struck out. (3.) IN support of his contentions he cited a Full Bench decision of the Punjab high Court in Iqbal Singh vs. Gurudas Sirtgh Badal A.I.R. 1973 Punjab 163 (F. B.)where the majority judgment being that of d. IK. Mahajan and R. S. Narula, JJ. held in favour of the contention of the Learned advocate General as it is advanced before me, in this application and the names of the returning Officer and the Chief Minister of Punjab who were added in the election petition alleging them being guilty of illegalities etc. in the context of the election petition was struck put. But I must point out that in the said judgment P.C. Pandii, J. gave a dissenting Judgment relying oh various Supreme Court decisions and followed a Division Bench decision of this Court in Dwijendra Lal vs. Hare Krishna A.I.R. 1963 Calcutta 290 where the identical question arose before the Division Bench and p,, B. Mukherji, J. as he then was, delivering the well-considered judgment held that under the Civil Procedure Code which is applicable to the trial of an election petition as a suit under section 87 of the said Act, court has ample power to add proper parties even though he may not be necessary party under section 82 of the said Act. In that case it was held that the Returning Officer was a proper party and he can be added by the Court under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil procedure Code which is made applicable under the said Act for the trial of an election petition. In that case it was held that the Returning Officer was a proper party and he can be added by the Court under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil procedure Code which is made applicable under the said Act for the trial of an election petition. It would have been enough for me at this stage to dispose of the application on this ground as the Division Bench decision of this Court which is binding on me where the identical questions were considered and have already decided against the contentions which are now raised by the Learned Advocate General in this application. (4.) HOWEVER, the Learned Advocate general also cited four other Supreme court decisions in Krishan Chunder vs. Ramlal A.I.R. 1973 S. C. 2513 paragraph 14, Moharaj vs. Surendra Kumar Taparia A.I.R. 1969 S. C. 677 at paragraph 10, Sibchand vs. Ojagar Singh A. I. R. 1978 S. C. 1583 paragraph 8 at page 1588 and Ram Sewak jadab vs. Hussain Kamal Kidwai A. I. R. 1964 S. C. 1249 at 1251 paragraph 6. But in my view, those decision have no application in the facts of this case as all the cases dealt with the question of non-joinder of candidates who are necessary parties under section 82 of the said Act which entails the penalty of dismissal of the election petition under section 86 (1) of the said Act. On the other hand, the said decisions recognised the powers of the Court trying the election petition to add or strike out patties under order 1 Rule 10 sub-rule 2 of the civil Procedure Code in proper cases. Mr. R. K. Lala, appearing with Mr. A. C. Law, for Debi Ghoshal, the petitioner, who filed the election petition submittted that the dissenting judgment in the Punjab full Bench of Mr. Mr. R. K. Lala, appearing with Mr. A. C. Law, for Debi Ghoshal, the petitioner, who filed the election petition submittted that the dissenting judgment in the Punjab full Bench of Mr. Justice Pandit who has followed the Division Bench Judgment decision in A. I. R. 1963 Calcutta 218 has been followed in Single Bench Bombay decision in H. A. Gokhale vs. Bhamcha noshir A. I. R. 1969 Bombay 177 at page 188 paragraph 20 and also the same principle has been laid down by a Single Bench decision of the Madras High Court in K. T, kosalram vs. Santosham AIR 1969 Madras 116 which appeard to me the correct principle, that the persons against whom corrupt practices in the election within the meaning of the said Act have been alleged and to be proved, they are proper parties and therefore, their presence is necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the matter without delay and as such the present application cannot be allowed and the names of the applicants cannot be struck out. Further, Mr. Lala submitted that the nature of allegations against the said Respondents being the applicants herein who are not candidates are of very grave and serious nature which amounts to complete rigging of the said election and therefore, their presence are absolutely necessary for disposal of the election petition expeditiously. Mr. Lala submitted rightly that the procedure for adding parties under, section 86 (4) is only applicable to any candidate in an election, against whom corrupt practices have been alleged in the petition, and section 99 (1) (a) (ii) only relates to naming a person against whom corrupt practice has been proved at the trial, but he was not made a party to the election petition, after following the procedure laid down in the proviso to the section 99 of the said Act. Therefore, Mr. Lala, in my view rightly submitted after relying on the said Division Bench decision of this Court that the principles has been laid down there and also in the said Supreme Court decisions by both the parties, clearly recognised the ample power given to the Court trying election petition under Civil Procedure Code either to add parties or strike out parties from an election petition and proceedings if the Court thinks fit in proper cases. And, therefore, addition of proper parties are permissible and such parties cannot be struck out and it depends on the nature of the allegations made in the election petition against those persons and this election petition being admitted by this court, it must be held that the allegations in the petition has prima facie made out a case against the parties who are made respondents, including the applicants in this case. Therefore, it is submitted that the application should be dismissed. (5.) IN my view, the submission of Mr. Lala is right and should be accepted and that seemed to be the correct principle and moreover the said Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court is binding on me and in that view of the matter and also I respectfully agree with the dissenting judgment of Punjab Full Bench decision of pandit, J, who have approved the said division Bench decisions and the said Bombay High Court and Madras High Court decisions on the same question. (6.) IT appears to me that the present application by the Respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 9 has been made being inspired by the majority Judgment in the Full Bench decision of the said Punjab High Court in AIR 1973 Punjabi Haryana 163, (Supra) but i respectfully disagree and cannot accept the said majority decision as it is contrary to our said Division 'bench decision in AIR 1963 Calcutta 218 (Supra). The dissenting judgment of P. C. Pandit, J. in the Full bench decision of the Punjab High Court appears to me to have correctly summarised the law as it stands so far as the question raised in this application. He has observed in paragraph 32 at page 172 of AIR 1973 Punjab as follows : "as I have already said, this section only specifies 'necessary parties' to an election petition and nothing more. It does not create a bar in the impleading of 'proper' parties' nor it says that the names of the parties/who have already been impleaded should be deleted, because they were only proper' and not 'necessary parties'. So it has to be held that the Act and the rules framed thereunder do not debar the impleading of 'proper parties' to an election petition and further that there is no section or rule under which the names of 'proper parties' already impleaded can be scored off. So it has to be held that the Act and the rules framed thereunder do not debar the impleading of 'proper parties' to an election petition and further that there is no section or rule under which the names of 'proper parties' already impleaded can be scored off. " And also observed in paragraph 52 at pages. 176-177 of tha said report as follows : "section 99 of the Act, in my view, only prescribes the time when the order naming a person as guilty of having committed a corrupt practice is to be recorded and not, necessarily the time when notice is to Be issued to such person. All that has been stated in the provision is that if such a person is not already on the record, he shall be issued a notice and heard, afforded a chance to cross-examine witnesses who have deposed against him and given an opportunity to lead his defence evidence. " I respectfully entirely agree with the interpretations and scope of Sec 82 and 99 of the said Act in the said dissenting judgment of Pandit, J, in the Full Bench decision of the Punjab High Court, which has also approved the said division bench decision of this Court in Dwijendralal vs. Hare Krishna AIR 1963 Calcutta 214 where f'. B. Mukherji J. as he then was, dealing with the identical questions, after considering the relevant provision of the said Act in a writ petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India arising out of a rejection of an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for adding the Returning Officer as a party respondent to the election petition against whom very serious grounds of illegalities etc. were alleged amounting to corrupt practice. P. B. Mukharji J, as he then was, held at page 224 paragraph 25 of AIR 1963 Calcutta (Supra) as follows : "it is also not unreasonable to infer that by necessary implication as well as by obvious exclusion, section 82 does not make the Returning Officer a 'necessary' party to the election petition but that only at best shows that the Returning Officer is not what is called a 'necessary' party to the extent that his non-joinder will not lead to the penalty of dismissal of the petition. But the Returning Officer may nevertheless in an appropriate case be a 'proper party' who may be added as party to the election petition. The result will appear to follow from section 90 of the Representation of peoples Act which provides that subject to the provisions of this Act and of any Rules made thereunder every election petition shall be tried by the tribunal as nearly as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to the trial of suit. " Then again in paragraph 27 P. B. Mukharji, J. as he then was finally summarised the principle in paragraph 27 at page 224 of air 1963 (Supra) Calcutta as follows : "from this it follows that the necessary implication by section 90 of the representation of the Peoples Act, is that the trial of an election petition shall be as nearly as may in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure to the trial of suits, subject no doubt to the provisions of the Representation of peoples Act and to the Rules made thereunder. The trial of election petition in the context of section 90, therefore, must necessarily imply in the light of the observations made by the. Supreme Court as quoted above, interlocutory proceedings dealing with the addition of parties as proper parties. " In the above quotation section 90 is now section 87 of the present Act. (7.) IT may be useful to refer to some observations in the Supreme Court decisions cited by both the parties. In Kishan Chundet v. Ram Lai AIR 1973 SC 2513 at 2519 jagannath Reddy J. after dealing with the question - 'necessary party' as defined in section 82 observed in paragraph 13 where he dealt with the questions of corrupt practice and power of the Court to make an order under sections 98 and 99 of the said Act and concluded as follows : "section 82 differs from the proviso to clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 99 that the former contemplates joining the parties who are known to the petitioner at the time of filing his petition whereas the later deals with cases which are discovered during the trial and which were not known to the petitioner at the time of filing of the petition. Apart from ensuring the purity of election and finality in regard to all election matters one other consideration seems to be the expeditious disposal of election petition," (8.) IN Mohan Raj vs. Surendra Kumar air 1969 SC 681 where Hidayatulla, CJ. observed in an appeal by the election petitioner whose application was dismissed after dealing with the provisions of section 82 of the said Act and order 1 rule 10 and order 6 rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure at page 681 in paragraph 16 as follows: "the Code of Civil Procedure applies subject to the provisions of the representation of the Peoples Act and any Rules made thereunder (See section 87) when the Act enjoins the penalty of dismissal of the petition for non-joinder of party the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be used as curative means to save the petition" Again in Murarka Radha Shyam vs. Rup Singh AIR1964sc 1545 where the question was whether an unnecessary party who is not a necessary party under section 82 of the Representation of Peoples Act, having been joined in the election petition makes the election petition not maintainable. It was held that the said petition is maintainable and cannot be dismissed. Mr. S. K. Das, J, observed at page 1549 paragraph 7 as follows : "we agree with the High Court that if all the necessary parties have been joined to the election petition, the circumstances that a person who is not a necessary party has also been impleaded does not amount to a breach of the provisions of section 82 and no question of dismissing the petition under sub-section 3 of section 90 arises. It is open to the Election tribunal to strike out the name of the party who is not a necessary party within the meaning of section 82 of the Act. The position will be different if a person who is required to be joined as a necessary party under section 82 is not impleaded as a party to the petition". It is open to the Election tribunal to strike out the name of the party who is not a necessary party within the meaning of section 82 of the Act. The position will be different if a person who is required to be joined as a necessary party under section 82 is not impleaded as a party to the petition". (9.) FROM the above principles and also from the provisions of the representations of the People Act, 1951 and various rules made thereunder I am of the view that there is no bar in adding as a party respondent to the election petition by the petitioner any person against whom specific allegations have been made of corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 of the said Act. That is also for the interest of justice, public interest to have a free and fair election and also for expeditious hearing of the election petition, which is the whole object and intention of the said Act also find from the allegations in the petition that prima facie case of corrupt practices of a very serious nature amounting to rigging of the election have been made out and also of various electoral offence and alleged under the said Act against the said applicants and other respondents who are not candidates or necessary parties under Section 82 of the said Act. Therefore, in my view, according to the said Division Bench decision of this court, which I have referred to before and the relevant passages from, the judgment of P. B. Mukharji, J as the then was, has been quoted above, the applicants are proper parties to this election petition and should mot be and can not be struck out for the interest of justice and fair play. In the result, I am making no order on this application save and except that cost of this application will be cost in the cause.