N. N. GOSWAMY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is an elector in the constituency in question and he has filed an election petition challenging the election of respondent 1, the returned candidate, on the grounds of corrupt practices covered under S. 123 (3) and (4) of the Act from the Metropolitan Council Constituency No. 46, Qasabpura, Delhi in the election held on 5-2-1983. ( 2 ) IN Para 6 of the petition, it is alleged that respondents 1 to 9 filed their nomination papers from the said Metropolitan Constituency as candidates. In addition to the said nine respondents, the two other persons namely Babu Lal and Om Prakash Vashisht were also duly nominated as candidates but they withdrew their nomination papers before the date of withdrawal. The allegations of corrupt practices are contained in para 13 and 17 of the petition. It is stated in paras 13 and 17 : "13. That a public meeting was organised by the respondent 1 which was held on 25-1-1983, at about 9. 00 P. M. , in the ground near Ban Masjid Qasabpura Delhi. This area is predominently a Muslim area. In this meeting on the stage/dais Shri Mohd. Arif Beg who is a very important functionary and office bearer of Bhartiya Janta Party, the respondent 1 Mohd. Ismail, Shri Quamet-ud-din who was BJP Candidate to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi from the Ward falling in the constituency in question Shri Om Prakash Sahni election agent of the respondent No. 1 and General Secretary to the Qasabpura Block BJP etc. , were seated. Said Shri Mohd. Arif Beg delivered a speech in Urdu in the said meeting which was very largely attended by the Muslim Voters. In his entire speech, he made consistent appeals on the ground of Muslim religion and community and appealed to the Muslim voters to vote for the respondent 1. He also in his speech attempted to promote the feelings of enmity and hatred between the different classes of citizens of India on the grounds of religion and community with the object of materially affecting and for the furtherance of the elections prospects of respondent 2. In his speech Shri Arif Beg recited Ay at from the Holy Book the Quran Sharif in Arabic and himself translated the same into Urdu. "paras 17 of the petition deals with the printing and publishing of certain posters. In his speech Shri Arif Beg recited Ay at from the Holy Book the Quran Sharif in Arabic and himself translated the same into Urdu. "paras 17 of the petition deals with the printing and publishing of certain posters. It is alleged : "it is submitted that the said posters were widely circulated and published in the early hours of morning of 3-2-1983, throughout the Qasabpura constituency in general and such areas in the constituency which are predominantly inhabited by the persons belonging to Quresh brotherhood. These posters were being affixed with the consent of respondent No. 1 under the supervision of his election in charge and agent namely Om Parkash Sahni son of Shri Gurbux Rai who was also the general secretary of the block BJP of Qasabpura, in the early hours of the morning of 3-2-1983. The petitioner himself witnessed the pastings of the aforesaid posters as mentioned above. It is further submitted that the petitioner has set forth the full particulars of the said corrupt practice, relating to the said poster. However, the names of the persons who have committed this corrupt practice and the time and date and place of its commission are given. " ( 3 ) IN the written statement filed by the returned candidate i. e. respondent 1, it was pleaded as a preliminary objection that the petition was liable to be dismissed for non- compliance with S. 82 (b) of the Act. It is stated that Om Prakash who is also known as Om Prakash Sawhney was a candidate in the said election. He filed his nomination papers and his nomination papers were accepted and he thus became one of the duly nominated candidates in the election in dispute. Later on the said Om Prakash withdrew his candidature before the date of withdrawal and was appointed by the returned candidate as an election agent and he was the election-in-charge of the said respondent. Allegations of corrupt practices have been made in the petition against the said Om Prakash who was a candidate in the said election but he has not been impleaded as a respondent as required under the mandatory provisions of S. 82 (b) of the Act. The petition was liable to be dismissed on this short ground. Allegations of corrupt practices have been made in the petition against the said Om Prakash who was a candidate in the said election but he has not been impleaded as a respondent as required under the mandatory provisions of S. 82 (b) of the Act. The petition was liable to be dismissed on this short ground. ( 4 ) AFTER the aforesaid written statement was filed, the petitioner filed an application under S. 86 (5) of the Act for the amendment of the petition. It was that on account of the bona fide mistake the petitioner has mentioned the name of Om Prakash in para 17 of the petition and in fact the petitioner was meaning one Narinder Sahni son of Shri Gurbax Rai. The mistake has occurred because the petition was filed in a hurry. It was further stated that the petitioner never intended to mention the name of Om Prakash Sahni, the election agent in para 17 of the petition which is apparent from the fact that he did not describe the said Om Prakash Sahni in para 17 as an election agent which he had specifically done in para 13 of the petition. The application, for amendment, was heard by me and by my order dated Aug. 2, 1983 I had dismissed the same. I had recorded a finding in that order that Om Prakash Sahni mentioned in paras 13 and 17 refers to the same person who was the election agent of respondent 1. I further recorded the finding that it was clear that if the petitioner at the time of filing of the original petition was aware of the fact that Om Prakash Sahni was also a candidate who had been duly nominated he would have certainly impleaded him as a party along with other nine respondents. ( 5 ) AFTER the aforesaid amendment was refused the following preliminary issue was framed by me : "whether Shri Om Prakash Sahni referred to in para 17 of the election petition was a necessary party to the election petition? If so, whether the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of S. 82 (b) of the Representation of Peoples Act?"by now it stands settled that a candidate who is duly nominated continues to be a candidate for the purpose of S. 82 (b) in spite of withdrawal. If so, whether the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of S. 82 (b) of the Representation of Peoples Act?"by now it stands settled that a candidate who is duly nominated continues to be a candidate for the purpose of S. 82 (b) in spite of withdrawal. It is enough to cite one decision of the Supreme Court for this proposition and i. e. Mohan Raj v. Surendra Kumar, AIR 1969 SC 677 . In view of this settled position, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not press this point. ( 6 ) THE first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the alleged corrupt practices, if at all, were committed by Om Prakash Sahni as an election agent and not in his capacity as a candidate. In order to appreciate this argument, it is necessary to reproduce. S. 82 of the Act which is, as under: - "s. 82. Parties to the petition. 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. " ( 7 ) THE argument appears to be attractive on the bare reading of the section but unfortunately for the petitioner the question is no longer res integra. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court had the occasion to consider the same question inChaturbhuj v. Election Tribunal, 15 ELR301: ( AIR 1958 All 809 ). In that case, the petitioners before the Court were unsuccessful candidates in two different constituencies and had presented election petitions to the Election Commission under the procedure then in force. In each of the two constituencies there was one other candidate who had duly withdrawn his candidature, but they were not impleaded as respondents in the election petition. The petitions were referred to the Tribunals for trial. In each of the two constituencies there was one other candidate who had duly withdrawn his candidature, but they were not impleaded as respondents in the election petition. The petitions were referred to the Tribunals for trial. At one stage objections were taken that the election petitions should be dismissed on the ground that a candidate against whom, allegations of corrupt practices had been made in the petition, had not been impleaded as a party to the same and as such there was non- compliance with the provisions of S. 82 (b) of the Act. An argument was advanced that S. 82 (b) was applicable only if the corrupt practices as alleged, should have been committed by them whilst they were candidates and in their capacity as such. This argument was negatived by the High Court. The Court observed : "we do not think that the language of Cl. (b) of S. 82 (b) of the Act justifies such an interpretation. Had it been the intention that only those candidates were necessary parties against whom allegations were of commission of corrupt practices in their capacity as such, it could have been made manifest by introducing appropriate words to convey this intention. Further, as we have held earlier, the definition of the word candidate in Cl. (b) of S. 79 of the Act includes a person who claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate at any election. Such a person does not actually participate in the election as a candidate. His candidature is confined to the time of nomination and the rejection of his nomination. He cannot possibly commit any acts of corrupt practice at that time and yet by including such a person in the definition of the word candidate in Cl. (b) of S. 79 of the Act, the Legislature has laid down that he must be impleaded as party under Cl. (b) of S. 82 of the Act if there are allegations of corrupt practice against him. In these circumstances Cl. (b) of S. 79 of the Act, the Legislature has laid down that he must be impleaded as party under Cl. (b) of S. 82 of the Act if there are allegations of corrupt practice against him. In these circumstances Cl. (b) of S. 82 of the Act must be interpreted as covering cases where a candidate is alleged to have committed corrupt practice at any time even though he may have ceased to participate in the contest, by withdrawing his candidature or by retiring from the contest or may have been incapable of participating in the election because his nomination was rejected but he claims to have been duly nominated. The main point urged by learned counsel for the petitioners in these two writ petitions that a candidate, who had withdrawn his candidature, was not a necessary party under Cl. (b) of S. 82 of the Act must, therefore, be decided against them. " ( 8 ) SAME view have been taken by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Abhey Singh v. Nihar Singh, 25 ELR 113 : (AIR 1964 Pandh 209) and in Amin Lal v. Hunne Mal, 25 ELR 116 : (AIR 1964 Pandh 213 ). In Amin Lal s case I. D. Dua, J. speaking for the Court, observed : "i am unable to appreciate the distinction between an allegation made against the person in his capacity as a candidate and in any other capacity for the purposes of attracting the above sub-section. The statutory provisions on their plain reading do not support the submission nor does the statutory scheme or the considerations of achieving the Legislative object lend any helpful assistance to the contention. Where a person has withdrawn his candidature, obviously corrupt practice as a candidate, which has been conceded to mean corrupt practice in support of his own candidature, can only be committed by him during the period that he held himself out as a candidate. The sphere of such commission of corrupt practices must, from the very nature of things, be extremely limited, and, may seldom, if ever, except perhaps in rarest cases, actually affect the result of the election. The sphere of such commission of corrupt practices must, from the very nature of things, be extremely limited, and, may seldom, if ever, except perhaps in rarest cases, actually affect the result of the election. Considered from this point of view also one cannot see much cogency in necessitating the impleading of a candidate in respect of such corrupt practices and leaving him out for other corrupt practices committed by him which may have more vitally affected the election. At the bar no convincing reason was advanced for construing S. 82 (b) in the restricted sense suggested. I am, therefore, unable to hold the scope of S. 82 (b) to be confined only to the allegations of corrupt practice against a candidate when it is committed by him in his capacity as such. This very point has also been raised in Abhey Singh v. Nihar Singh and in that case also we have taken the same view. " ( 9 ) THE Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Baburao Tatyaji Bhosale v. Madho Shrihari Aney, AIR 1961 Bom 29 following the case of Chaturbhuj v. Election Tribunal ( AIR 1958 All 809 ) (supra) came to the conclusion that a candidate against whom allegations of corrupt practice are made he has to be joined as party to the petition whether he committed corrupt practices in his own interests, or in the interests of some other candidate. The next contention that one Haridas Damaji Awade an individual made the appeals or carried out propaganda on behalf of the other candidate on the grounds of caste, race, community or religion and though he incidentally happens to be a candidate also he need not be impleaded under Cl. (b) of S. 82 because the allegations are made against him not as a candidate but only as unconnected person working for the respondent, was rejected. ( 10 ) THE case of Amin Lal v. Hunne Mal (AIR 1964 Pandh 213) (supra) decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Court went up in appeal to the Supreme Court and the judgment of the Supreme Court is reported as AIR 1965 SC 1243 . The Supreme Court noticed the fact that the allegations of corrupt practices had been made against one Suraj Bhan who was a dulynominated candidate though he had withdrawn his candidature. The Supreme Court noticed the fact that the allegations of corrupt practices had been made against one Suraj Bhan who was a dulynominated candidate though he had withdrawn his candidature. In the circumstances, it was held that he did not cease to be a candidate for the purpose of parts VI, VII VIII of the Act and if the petition contained any imputations of corrupt practices against him, the petition could not be regarded as a properly constituted unless he was impleaded as a respondent. ( 11 ) IN view of the cases referred to above, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged corrupt practice, if at all, was committed by Om Prakash Sahni as an election agent and not in his capacity as a candidate and therefore he was not a necessary party to the petition has to be rejected. ( 12 ) THE next contention of Mr. Narula, the learned counsel for the petitioner, was that the alleged corrupt practice contained in para 17 of the petition is, in fact, not a corrupt practice and as such it was not necessary to implead Om Parkash Sahni as a respondent. Para 17 of the petition deals with the printing and publishing of posters. Further allegations against Om Parkash Sahni have already been reproduced above. I have been taken through the alleged poster which is annexure c to the petition. The poster only mentions the statements made by Dr. Roshan Lal respondent. According to the poster Dr. Roshan Lal made a public statement that the present slaughter house was not a proper slaughter house and he wanted a new slaughter house on the lines of slaughter house in Bombay. His further statement as alleged in the poster is that from North India a larger quantity of calf leather is being exported which is obtained by unfair means. He also allegedly stated that such a business was being carried on at Turkman Gate also. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the objectionable part of the poster is that certain people from Quresh brother-hood go and represent to Dr. Roshan Lal that they are respectable persons of the locality and represent entire locality while in fact they are not the representatives of the locality. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the objectionable part of the poster is that certain people from Quresh brother-hood go and represent to Dr. Roshan Lal that they are respectable persons of the locality and represent entire locality while in fact they are not the representatives of the locality. After giving my careful consideration to the entire poster, I do not find that the poster contains any objectionable matter which may fall under Cl. (4) of S. 123 of the Act and as such the allegations do not amount to a corrupt practice. However, this is not an end of the allegations. Further allegations are contained in para 13 of the petition. The said para relates to a public meeting organized by respondent No. 1 which was held on 25-1-1983. The meeting was allegedly addressed by Mohd. Arif Beg and it is alleged that Om Parkash Sahni election agent of respondent 1 was one of the persons sitting on the dais in that meeting. The speech of Mohd. Arif Beg, as stated in the petiton, is : "dear Muslim Brothers, Sisters and friends, I have come to request you and inform you that Indira Government is great enemy of Indian Muslims and she wants that the Mohammedans should quit India or remain as slaves or as second Nation members. The communal riots in Meerut, Muradabad, Sambhat Aligarh and other cities of India took place with the help of Indira Government The Mohammedans suffered a heavy loss of life, huge loss of property etc. for which the Indira Government is fully responsible. You can also judge that our brothers have suffered at the above places but Indira Gandhi, the Prime Minister who always tries to show courtesy with the Muslims, did not visit even the above places and has not shown any sympathies with the aggrieved muslims personally to save them from losses of their , lives and properties etc. and to accommodate them financially. The Allah through Quran Sharif Order the Muslims vide para 6 Rakho 7, Ayat 51. "that it is a great sin to recognise and to be faithful to such Government, whose policies harm the Muslims. and to accommodate them financially. The Allah through Quran Sharif Order the Muslims vide para 6 Rakho 7, Ayat 51. "that it is a great sin to recognise and to be faithful to such Government, whose policies harm the Muslims. "friends, when you are fully aware of anti- Muslims policies of the Indira Government on the command of the Quran Sharif, it becomes the duty of every Muslim of Sula not to vote and support the Congress (I) candidate Dr. Roshan Lal. Shri Mohd. Ismail and Shri Quamet-ud-din are your brothers and by above (Ayat) they are entitled of your vote otherwise you will not be blessed by God, allah . It is sin to vote for Dr. Roshan Lal and it will be disobedience of Quran Sharif. " ( 13 ) IT is further stated in the petition that after the aforesaid speech by Mohd. Arif Beg, respondent No. 1 came to the microphone and addressed the audience in Urdu thereby saying that he hoped that they would follow what Mohd. Arif Beg had told them and that they would vote for their brothers i. e. he and Quamet-ud-din, a candidate for Municipal Corporation of Delhi. In the schedule the corrupt practice has been attributed to Shri Mohd. Arif Beg with the consent of respondent No. 1 and to respondent 1 himself. In order to succeed the petitioner will have to prove that the speech, as alleged, was delivered. The said speech, if delivered, amounts to corrupt practice and that the speech was with the consent of respondent No. 1. In the schedule the corrupt practice is not attributed to the Election Agent. Merely because it is stated that he was present at the dais, does not amount to an allegation of corrupt practice. The Supreme Court considered a similar situation in N. C. Zeliang v. Aju Newmai, AIR 1981 SC 8 . In that case in schedule c the particulars of the corrupt practice, as stated, were that the appellant gave a feast on three occasions to the electorals and purchased a pig on all these occasions for hosting the voters. The evidence led, however, showed that no feast was hosted by the appellant at all but was done by some other person who was his agent while the appellant was present. The evidence led, however, showed that no feast was hosted by the appellant at all but was done by some other person who was his agent while the appellant was present. The Supreme Court held that the evidence was contrary to the pleadings and as such the appellant could not be held to be guilty of having committed corrupt practice although he was found to be present when the feast was hosted. ( 14 ) FOR the reasons recorded above, it is held that the petition is not liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-compliance with sub-sec. (b) of S. 82 of the Representation of the People Act and it will have to be tried on the remaining grounds except on the ground of poster, the allegations of which are contained in para 17 of the petition.