ORDER K.N. Seth, J. - Babu Ram, who is arrayed as one of the respondents in the above noted petitions, has moved. applications for striking off the Chief Election Commissioner of India and the Returning Officer, 2-Garhwal Parliamentary Constituency from the array of respondents and further to recall the order dated 4-10-1982 granting them time to file their written statements in both the election petitions. 2. On 4-10-1982 appearance as put in on behalf of the Chief Election Commissioner of India and as prayed two weeks' time was allowed to file written statement. The Chief Election Commissioner of India filed his written statement on 19-10-1982. On 19-10-1982 directed that the written statement may be kept on record subject to the order on the application for striking off the names of the Chief Election Commissioner of India and the Returning Officer, 2 - Garhwal Parliamentary Constituency. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant Babu Ram, contended that under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the Chief Election Commissioner and the Returning Officer could not be impleaded as respondents to the election petitions. The contention is well merited. Section 80 of the Act lays down that no election petition shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of Chap. II of the Act. The election petition may be filed by any candidate at such election or any elector. (See S. 81 of the Act). Section 82 specifies the persons who are to be impleaded as respondents in an election petition. II of the Act. The election petition may be filed by any candidate at such election or any elector. (See S. 81 of the Act). Section 82 specifies the persons who are to be impleaded as respondents in an election petition. It reads as follows : - "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 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." It is thus clear that if the only relief sought in the petition is a declaration that the election of the returned candidate is void -then the returned candidate is the only party to be impleaded but if a further declaration is sought that the petitioner or some other candidate is duly elected, all the contesting candidates have to be impleaded as respondents. Further, if an allegation of corrupt practice is made against any candidate other than returned candidate, such other candidate must also be joined as a respondent in the petition. Section 83 provides the contents of petition. Section 84 provides that the petitioner may, in addition to claiming a declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claim a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected. Section 86 deals with trial of election petitions. Sub-section (4) provides for an application by a candidate who is not already a respondent to be joined as a respondent. It reads as follows : - "Any candidate not already a respondent shall, upon application made by him to the High Court within fourteen days from the date of commencement of the trial and subject to any order as to security for costs which may be made by the High Court, be entitled to be joined as a respondent." The word 'candidate' is defined in S. 79 (b) to mean a person who has been or claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate at any election. The relevant provisions of the statute clearly indicate that only candidates can be impleaded as respondents in the election petition which may be filed either by a candidate or by an elector. 4. The question as to who can be impleaded as respondents in an election petition came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal ( AIR 1982 SC 983 ). In that ease Sri Jyoti Basu. the Chief Minister, and two Ministers of the Government of West Bengal were impleaded as respondents to the election petition challenging the election of one Mohd. Ismail. An objection was raised by The Chief Minister and the other Ministers that they, could not be impleaded as parties to the election petition since they were not candidates at the election. The application was dismissed by the Calcutta High Court on the ground that the applicants were proper parties to the election petition and, therefore, their names should not be struck out of the array of parties. On appeal, after analysing the provisions of the Act, the Supreme Court observed (at P. 987) : - "We think that the concept of 'proper parties' is and must remain alien to an election dispute under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Only those may be joined as respondents to an election petition who are mentioned in S. 82 and S. 86 (4) and no others. However, desirable and expedient it may appear to be, none else shall be joined as respondents." The Supreme Court also negatived the argument that since the Civil Procedure Code was applicable to the trial of election petitions proper parties whose presence may be necessary in order to enable the Court 'effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved' may be joined as respondents to the petition by observing that the question is not whether the Civil Procedure Code applies because it undoubtedly does, but only 'as far as may be' and subject to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the rules made thereunder. Section 87 (1) expressly says so. The question is whether the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code can be invoked to permit that which the Act does not. Quite obviously the provisions of the Code cannot he so invoked. 5. Section 87 (1) expressly says so. The question is whether the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code can be invoked to permit that which the Act does not. Quite obviously the provisions of the Code cannot he so invoked. 5. Sri Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner in Election Petition No. 1 of 1982 referred to S. 99 of the Act and urged that since allegations of corrupt practice have been made against the Chief Election Commissioner his presence before the Court as a party was necessary. Similar argument was advanced by Sri Ansuman Singh appearing for the Chief Election Commissioner. The proviso appended to S. 99 takes care of such a situation. At the time of making an order under S. 98 the High Court before naming the persons who have been proved at the trial to have been guilty of corrupt practice is required to give notice to such person to appear before the Court and show cause why he should not be so named and if he appears in pursuance of such a notice he is afforded an opportunity of cross-examining any witness who had already been examined and had given evidence against him and of calling evidence in his defence and of being heard. It is not necessary that such a person be made a party to the election petition. 6. Sri D. S. Sinha, learned counsel for Sri R. P. Nautiyal petitioner 1 in Election Petition 2 of 1982, referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh ( AIR 1964 SC 1545 ) and urged that the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Jyoti Basu ( AIR 1982 SC 983 ) (supra) was in conflict with the law laid down by a constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in that case wherein it has been observed that there is no warrant for reading in S. 82 the words "and no others". The question involved in the case was entirely different. In that case Ballu or Balji whose nomination paper had been rejected and who was not a contesting candidate was implead as a respondent to the election petition. It was urged that that amounted to contravention of the provisions of S. 82 and the election petition was liable to be dismissed. The question involved in the case was entirely different. In that case Ballu or Balji whose nomination paper had been rejected and who was not a contesting candidate was implead as a respondent to the election petition. It was urged that that amounted to contravention of the provisions of S. 82 and the election petition was liable to be dismissed. This argument was negatived and it was held that if all the necessary parties have been joined to the election petition, the circumstance that a person who is not a necessary party has also been impleaded does not amount to a breach of the provisions of S. 82 and no question of dismissing the petition arises. The position would be different if a person, who is required to be joined as a necessary party under S. 82 is not impleaded as a party to the election petition. The rule laid down in that case is of no assistance in the present case. The applicant has not prayed for dismissal of election petition on the ground that unnecessary parties have been impleaded. The limited prayer made is for striking off their names since S. 82 does not contemplate implement of such parties to the election petition. 7. I accordingly allow the applications and direct that the names of the Chief Election Commissioner and the Returning Officer, 2 -Garhwal Parliamentary Constituency shall be struck off from the array of respondents in both the petitions. The written statements filed by the Chief Election Commissioner shall not form part of the record.