ORDER B.D. Agrawal, J. - This is an election petition under S. 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 2. Election to the Legislative Assembly Constituency No. 368 Hathras (district Aligarh) took place in Feb., Mar., 1985. Feb. 6, 1985, was the date fixed up to which nomination could be filed, the scrutiny was scheduled to take place on the 7th and the nomination could be withdrawn up to the 9th Feb. Mar. 2, 1985, was the date notified for the poll. This was followed by the counting, which took place on 6th Mar., 1985. The number of candidates, whose nominations were filed, was 46; of these 20 withdrew and the remaining 26 remained in the field. Pandit Suraj Bhan son of Chet Ram resident of Kailash Nagar, Hathras, district Aligarh, then a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly, was also a candidate nominated for election through this constituency. He however, withdrew from the contest. As a result of the counting the respondent was declared elected. The petitioners are among the electors in the constituency. Among the grounds taken for challenging the election, the grounds C and D specified under paragraph 7 of the petition are as under "C- Because the result of the election so far it concerns the returned candidate, viz. respondent was materially affected by the corrupt practice of undue influence and booth capturing by the workers, supporters and agents of respondent in the interest of respondent. D. Because the result of the aforesaid election in so far it concern returned candidate, viz, respondent has been materially affected by non-compliance of the provisions of Constitution Act, Rules and Orders and directions issued by Election Commission and also by improper reception of vote in favour of respondent because of the booth capturing and also by polling and counting of votes contrary to the directions." 3. In respect of these grounds C and D the concise statement of material facts is claimed to be narrated by the petitioners in paragraphs 26 to 32 read with schedule. I appended to the petition. Paragraphs 26, 31 and 32, which are material, read as under : 26. That the respondent who was all out to adopt all foul practice to win the election have taken the assistance of Bori Lal Pradhan, Ran Veer Singh of village Kaurna when these persons who were all with firearms viz. I appended to the petition. Paragraphs 26, 31 and 32, which are material, read as under : 26. That the respondent who was all out to adopt all foul practice to win the election have taken the assistance of Bori Lal Pradhan, Ran Veer Singh of village Kaurna when these persons who were all with firearms viz. guns and rifle along with respondent himself reached the polling station 155 Raurana at about 11 A.M. on 2-3-85 viz. the date of poll and forced the entry to polling booth, threatened everybody present there including the Presiding Officer and the polling staff that if anybody dares to interfere against their action he will lose his life. They in fact captured the entire booth on the gun point and did not permit any of the voters to cast their vote. On the other hand they snatched away the ballot papers, put the seal over the ballot paper and inserted ballot papers themselves into the ballot box and threatened the voters concerned to go back to their places otherwise face danger to their respective lives. x x x x x x x x x x 31. That similarly respondent, his workers, supporters and agents with his consent and also in the interest of respondent captured the following booth : Polling Booth No. Name of Polling Booth 22 Hathras Nagar Palika 45 Ram Chandra Kanya Vidhyalaya, Hathras 54 Montesory School, Pannalal Ki Dharam Shala. 32. That the aforesaid booths Nos. 22, 45 and 54 were captured by the polling agents as well of respondent. A detailed chart of booth capturing is given in schedule - I, attached to this petition." 4. In Schedule I to the petition at serial No. 1 there is mention in column No. 2 of Polling Station 21; column No. 3 gives the name as Hathras Municipal Board Health Department, Hathras; the time mentioned is 2 p.m. and in column No. 5 under the heading `Name of respondent's agents, workers who captured booth' the names appearing include Pt. Sooraj Bhan, M.L.A. In column No. 6 the number of persons collected is mentioned as 100 against this serial. 5. For the respondent preliminary objection has been raised in the application filed in this behalf accompanied with affidavit to the effect that the election petition is liable to be dismissed under S. 86(1) read with S. 82(b) of the Act, due to Pt. 5. For the respondent preliminary objection has been raised in the application filed in this behalf accompanied with affidavit to the effect that the election petition is liable to be dismissed under S. 86(1) read with S. 82(b) of the Act, due to Pt. Suraj Bhan, aforementioned, being not joined as a co respondent in the petition. The contention for the respondent is that Pt. Suraj Bhan was a candidate as defined in S. 79(b); there are allegations of corrupt practice against him made in the petition but he is not arrayed as a respondent and hence this Court has no option but to dismiss the petition on this account for non-compliance to the mandatory requirement of S. 82(b). The petitioners have disputed this contention raised on behalf of the respondent. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Controversy is not raised before me so far as the position under the law in this respect is concerned. S.86(1) of the Act provides that the High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of S. 81 or S. 82 or S. 117. In S. 82 Cl. (a) requires that a petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner, 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, and where no such further declaration is claimed, he shall join all the returned candidates. Cl. (b) lays down that the petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition. The expression `candidate' for purposes of Part VI comprising of Ss. 79 to 122 is defined in S. 79(b) as follows : " `candidate' means a person who has been or claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate at any election." 8. It is not in dispute that Pt. Suraj Bhan, aforementioned, was also one of the nominees for the election to the Legislative Assembly from this constituency and he withdrew before the date of the poll could arrive. It is not in dispute that Pt. Suraj Bhan, aforementioned, was also one of the nominees for the election to the Legislative Assembly from this constituency and he withdrew before the date of the poll could arrive. The respondent has along with the affidavit supporting his application placed on record the list of the candidates nominated for the constituency election and also the list of those who withdrew besides that candidates who remained in the field after the withdrawal. These are Annexures I, II and III respectively to the application. No dispute is raised in regard to any of these from the side of the petitioners. Pt. Suraj Bhan figures in the list of those nominated as also those who withdrew. The law is settled that for purposes of S. 82(b) a person who was duly nominated as a candidate despite the fact that he may have withdrawn from the actual contest (sic) and further that the compliance to S. 82(b) is imperative. In Mohan Singh v. Bhanwarlal, AIR 1964 SC 1366 it was held that a person, who was duly nominated as a candidate for election, would not cease to be a candidate for the purpose of Part VI of the Act, we are concerned with, merely because he withdrew his candidature. Therefore, where a petition contains an imputation of corrupt practice against such a person, it could not be regarded as properly constituted unless he has been impleaded as a respondent see also Amin Lal v. Hunna Mal, AIR 1965 SC 1243 . In Har Swarup v. Brij Bhushan Saran, AIR 1967 SC 836 also cited by Sri K. N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent, the allegations were that `R' had withdrawn, but thereafter he threatened the voters to vote for `B'. It was held that the allegations made with respect to the conduct of `R' would amount to corrupt practice within the meaning of S. 123(2) of the Act. `R' gave the threat in furtherance of the election of `B' and on his behalf. He is covered under the definition Cl. (b) of S. 79 for he was duly nominated though he later withdrew his candidature under S. 37. There is no indication in S. 82(b) to suggest that the expression `any other candidate' only refers to a candidate who has not withdrawn his candidature under S. 37. He is covered under the definition Cl. (b) of S. 79 for he was duly nominated though he later withdrew his candidature under S. 37. There is no indication in S. 82(b) to suggest that the expression `any other candidate' only refers to a candidate who has not withdrawn his candidature under S. 37. This expression is used in contrast to the candidates, who are made parties under Cl. (v), and there is no reason for giving the definition in S. 79(b) a limited meaning for purposes of S. 82(b). The Court observed that there was no reason why he did not have to be impleaded as a necessary party under S. 82(b) simply because he committed allegedly corrupt practice after his withdrawal. Argument that S. 82(b) should be limited to a contesting candidate and that S. 100/123 speak of a candidate, whose candidature subsists to the time of the election, was repelled also in Mohan Raj v. Surendra Kumar Taparia, AIR 1969 SC 677 which approved the Division Bench decision of this Court recorded in Chaturbhuj v. Election Tribunal, AIR 1958 All 1809. This was also the view taken by this Court in Nirbhay Pal Sharma v. Rulah Singh, (Election Petri. No. 20 of 1980) dated 5-1-1983. 9. Sri A. Kumar, learned counsel, in support of the election petition submits only that in the election petition there are no allegations of corrupt practice vis-a-vis Pt. Suraj Bhan. The argument advanced is that Schedule I pertains to paragraph 32 of the election petition and Pt. Surat Bhan is not named in this paragraph or paragraph 31 for that matter. A little analysis on the allegations made hardly bears out this submission. Paragraph 26 relates to alleged booth capturing of the Polling Station No. 155 (Kaurana). The details relating thereto are given in this paragraph. The word `similarly' appearing in paragraph 31 is in the context of what has been narrated in paragraph 26 aforesaid. This talks in other words of the same mannerism. The reference in paragraph 31 is to the respondent, his workers, supporters and agents. There is mention of the respondent's consent and also of the respondent's interest being subserved in the alternative with an eye obviously to the requirement under S. 100(1)(b)/100(1)(d)(iii) of the Act. Paragraph 32 extends this to polling agents as well. The reference in paragraph 31 is to the respondent, his workers, supporters and agents. There is mention of the respondent's consent and also of the respondent's interest being subserved in the alternative with an eye obviously to the requirement under S. 100(1)(b)/100(1)(d)(iii) of the Act. Paragraph 32 extends this to polling agents as well. As stated above, in Schedule I the details appearing wherein pertain both to what has been narrated in paragraphs 31 and 32 including the name of Pt. Suraj Bhan, M.L.A. among the respondent's agents, workers, who allegedly captured booth No. 21 (Hathras Municipal Board, Health Department, Hathras). There is no escape, therefore, from the conclusion that this entry in the schedule has to be read along side with what is stated in paragraphs 31 and 32 besides paragraph 26 and cumulatively they do constitute allegations of corrupt practice of undue influence within the meaning of S. 123(2). Whether booth capturing amounts to a corrupt practice or not is not the question. The petitioners have asserted this to be a corrupt practice and relied on this allegation in support of their challenge against the election. In face of the allegations of corrupt practice being thus made against Pt. Suraj Bhan a candidate also, it was mandatory to have joined him as co-respondent and the failure to do so attracts S. 86(1)/S. 82(b). In Mohan Raj (supra) the Supreme Court has also made out specific that S. 86(1) is peremptory admitting of no exception; the Court has enforced it strictly if there is a non- compliance with the requirements of S. 82 among others and no amendment can be permitted to delete allegations of corrupt practice against other candidates since that would amount to defeating what is provided for in S. 86(1). This is also the view taken in K. Venkateswara Rao v. Bekkam Narasimha Reddy, AIR 1969 SC 872 . 10. For the discussion made in the above, the objection raised for the respondent is sustained and the election petition consequently dismissed under S. 86(1) read with S. 82(b) of the Act with costs to the respondent, which I assess at rupees five hundred only.