CHANDRAKANTARAJ URS, J. ( 1 ) ALL these petitions are disposed, of by the following common order. They involve a common question of law and the facts may be taken as more or less common to all the petitions with reference to the question of law that falls to be answered though elections held relate to different constituencies and the challenges made by the concerned respondents were in different election petitions but presented to the same Munsiff. All the elections with which we are concerned were held for the same Mandal but for different constituencies in that Mandal. In all the petitions except one the petitioners are candidates for seat reserved for women and returned unopposed. In one petition the election is for the general seat. The Mandal in question is Shirva Mandal in udupi Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. Another fact which is common to all the petitions is that the candidates whose nomination papers were rejected at the time of scrutiny were the persons who presented, the election petition challenging the result of the election on the ground that the rejection of their nominations was improper and not sustainable in law. In all the cases, the learned Principal Munsiff, Udupi, has allowed the petitions holding that nominations were improperly rejected and therefore has set aside the elections of candidates to the various reserved seats in the multi-member constituencies of the Mandal, as the election petitioners' nominations were found to have been improperly rejected for those seats, except in the case of W. P. No. 15917/1987 which was by a voter of the constituency and not a candidate. ( 2 ) THOUGH there are other grounds urged in the memorandum of Writ Petitions, at the time of argument, none of them is pressed. The only ground pressed by Mr. P. Viswanatha Shetty, learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the election petitioners in their respective election petitions not having made all the returned candidates in the various relevant constituencies as respondents or parties, the learned Munsiff, Udupi, erred in proceeding to trial without dismissing the election petitions in limine in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the karnataka Ziila Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for not complying with the mandate chained in sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act. The thrust of the argument is that election is always held to a constituency and therefore the expression 'returned candidates' occurring in Sub-section (2) (a) of Section 14 of the Act, should be so construed to include all the "returned candidates" in the constituency notwithstanding the fact that the election petitioners had challenged the election of only of the returned candidates to the reserved seats. ( 3 ) AS already noticed, the elections in question were held to multi member constituencies in the mandal. Under the Act, provision is made for reservation of seats in constituencies in favour of women and Members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in certain proportions and women belonging to either Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in addition to general seats in any given constituency. In order to understand the thrust of the argument, it is better to illustrate the same as was done by Mr. P. Viswanatha Shetty. In a constituency in the Mandal, it is possible that there are three seats, one reserved for women, one reserved for Member of the scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes and another a general seat. If as in the instant cases, a person whose nomination was rejected for a seat in the constituency which was a reserved seat then having regard to the language of Section 14 (2) of the Act read with the Karnataka Zilla parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats (Conduct of election) Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), the returned candidates referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act refers to all the candidates of the constituency, that is, candidates who are declared elected to the reserved seats of women. Scheduled Castes or scheduled Tribes and the general seat and therefore in the cases on hand the petitioners not having made other returned candidates in the constituency parties to the election petition, the court was bound to reject in limine the petition even before trial for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of Section 14 (2) of the Act. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, Mr. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, Mr. M. Veerappa Moily, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents, namely, the election petitioners who have succeeded in the election petitions has contended that returned candidates occurring in Section 14 (2) (a) of the Act must be read so as to mean only, so far as the election petitioners are concerned the returned candidates and not to include returned candidates whose election, the election petitioner did not challenge. ( 5 ) IT is, therefore, in the light of these rival contentions that the Court has to examine whether while challenging the election of a returned candidate to a reserved seat, failure of the petitioner who had not sought any other relief except the declaration of the election of the successful returned candidate void was bound to make all the other returned candidate's in the constituency parties to the election petition. ( 6 ) SECTION 14 of the Act is as follows: "14. Election petition - (1) No election to fill a seat or seats in a Mandal Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented on one or more of the grounds specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 18 and Section 19 to the Munsiff within whose territorial jurisdiction the Mandal concerned or the major portion of the Mandal concerned is situate by any candidate at such election or by any voter qualified to vote at such election together with a deposit of one hundred rupees as security for costs, within thirty days from, but not earlier than, the date of declaration of the result of the election of the returned candidate, or if there are more than one returned candidate at the election, and if the dates of declaration of the results of their election are different, the last of those dates. (2) 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. (c) Every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition. Explanation:- The expression "returned candidate" means a candidate who has been declared as duly elected. " ( 7 ) IT would be necessary to state that this is in pari materia with Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It is further necessary to state that in so far as the Representation of the people Act is concerned, it no longer poses any problem though the Section continues to be as it was originally enacted despite an amendment in 1957, by which multi-member constituencies both in respect of elections to be held for the Assemblies in the State or Union Territories as well as the Lok Sabha are abolished. ( 8 ) SECTION 16 of the Act provides for trial of election petition. It consists of as many as nine sub sections and reference will be made at the appropriate stage to some of those sub-sections. At this stage it is necessary to mention that Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act mandates the munsiff to dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 14 of the Act. An explanation to that subsection further clarifies that an order of the Munsiff dismissing an election petition under that sub-section shall be deemed to be an order made under clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act. In other words, by fiction of law it shall be deemed to be an order passed after a trial, as such, in terms of Section 19 (2) of the Act it shall become final. ( 9 ) THE emphasis in the arguments of Shri P. Viswanatha Shetty, learned Counsel for the petitioners, is that notwithstanding the fact that no plea to this effect was raised by the returned candidates whose declaration as elected to the reserved seats was sought to be declared void, the munsiff was duty bound to suo motu dismiss the petitions when it was obvious that all the returned candidates referred to in Section 14 (2) (a) of the Act were not made respondents in the election petition or parties, to the election petition. In fact, Mr. In fact, Mr. Veeraopa Moily, had raised this aspect of the question as a preliminary objection, that is, that the plea not having been taken and issue raised before the Munsiff, it could not be raised in the Writ Petition for the first time. But that preliminary objection has been over-ruled by me on the ground that it is taken as a pure question of law which did not require any statement of fact and involves only interpretation of the provisions of the Act. ( 10 ) UNDOUBTEDLY, Mr. P. Viswanatha Shetty, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has founded his entire case on the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in regard to elections held to the Lok sabha, the Assemblies of the State or the Council of States or the Rajya Sabha or elections to the other Local Authorities like Municipalities, the Village Panchayats, the Zilla Parishads, the mandal Panchayats etc. In respect of the elections held for these bodies, the law appears to be more or less uniform and more often than not language employed is identical with the language employed in the Representation of the People Act. Therefore, he has commended to the Court for acceptance some decisions of the Supreme Court under the Representation of the People Act. The first case on which he has placed reliance is the case ofV. V. GIRI v. DIPPALA SURI dora AND ORS AIR1959 SC 1318 , [1960 ]1 SCR426. The election in respect of which the matter went up to the Supreme Court in the aforementioned case was an election held for a reserved constituency as it existed before 1957 for election to the Lok Sabha. It was observed in the said case as follows: "thus it is clear that election to the House of the People even from a double-member constituency where one seat is reserved for the Members of the Scheduled Tribes is one, and though the Constitution shows just anxiety to afford necessary protection to the Members of the scheduled Tribes, it deliberately refused to adopt the system of separate electorates. The constituency is one and election is held to the said constituency from one joint electoral roll prepared on the basis of qualifications which are of general and uniform application. The constituency is one and election is held to the said constituency from one joint electoral roll prepared on the basis of qualifications which are of general and uniform application. In regard to double-Member constituencies like Parvatipuram the Constitution has not even adopted the course of providing for a special constituency confined to the Members of the scheduled tribe. All that is done is to provide for the reservation of seats for the Members of the said tribes or castes in the manner already indicated. Even for the reserved seat all voters in the constituency are entitled to vote. The reservation of a seat in a double-Member constituency cannot, therefore, affect the main basic position that the constituency is one and for returning representatives to the house of the people it is the same joint electorate that goes to the poll. " ( 11 ) SIMILARLY, it has over-ruled with reference to Section 63 of the Representation of the People act that the very method of voting indicated was not consistent with the appellant's case that the election to the double-member constituency is held seat-wise. ( 12 ) WHAT fell for consideration in V. V. Giri's case supra were two questions and they were as follows: (1) Whether the declaration of the results made for Parvathipuram constituency was in accordance with Section 54 (4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. (2) Whether respondent-1 D. S. Dora was not qualified to contest a seat as one belonging to the scheduled Tribe. Both the questions were answered in favour of the respondent. The question as to who are necessary parties mandatorily was never gone into by the Supreme Court in that case. It never arose for consideration. Therefore, there is nothing which assists the petitioner in that case except to substantiate the proposition that in a double member or a multi member constituency when elections are held under a common electoral roll declaration is to be made in accordance with the provisions made in that behalf strictly and in no other way. ( 13 ) WHAT really corresponds to Section 54 (4) of the Representation of the People Act is Rule 28 of the Rules. ( 13 ) WHAT really corresponds to Section 54 (4) of the Representation of the People Act is Rule 28 of the Rules. It will be useful to state that Sub-rule (4) of Rule 28 of the Rules is in pari materia with Section 54 (4) of the Representation of the People Act as it then existed, except that the rules with which we are concerned do not have the explanation or Illustration which the said section 54 had. But in order to understand the manner in which Sub-rule (4) of Rule 28 of the rules should be worked out, we must necessarily fall back on the illustration to Section 54 (4) of the Representation of the People Act. ( 14 ) SECTION 14 (2) (a) of the Act has been set out in extenso earlier in the course of this order. A careful reading of that Section discloses as to proper parties in an election petition. When a petitioner presents a petition to the Munsiff under Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act and asks for a relief one of which relates to a declaration of the election of the successful candidate to be void and also a relief to declare himself as elected in his or her place, then all contesting candidates must be made parties. Where and when the election petitioner does not seek a declaration in his own favour then he need make only the returned candidates parties to such a petition. ( 15 ) APPARENTLY, the legislative intent is obvious. If a person claims that he is duly elected and he must be declared as such then all candidates who contested become necessary parties to putforth their cases either in support or against granting of such a relief. In the case wnen no such declaration is prayed for by the petitioner for himself then only the affected candidates, that is, the returned candidates alone need be made parties. ( 16 ) I have al ready set out eariier in the course of this order the contention of Mr. P. Viswanatha shetty. His contention now also is that when the election petitioner was a candidate whose nomination was turned down or rejected, he possibly could not seek a declaration for his own benefit and the only relief he could ask for is to seek the relief that the successful candidate's election should be declared void. P. Viswanatha shetty. His contention now also is that when the election petitioner was a candidate whose nomination was turned down or rejected, he possibly could not seek a declaration for his own benefit and the only relief he could ask for is to seek the relief that the successful candidate's election should be declared void. Therefore, if election held was to the constituency as such, and not to individual seats therein, then all candidates returned from that constituency should have been made parties, that is to say, whether the election petitioner had filed his nomination for reserved seats or the general seats. If he challenges the election of a candidate for the reserved seat, he should necessarily make all the returned candidates of the constituency parties, because such a candidate is entitled to be declared elected even to a general ( 17 ) BUT the difficulty in the way to accept the argument is easily demonstrated. As earlier pointed out in the illustration in the Mandal constituencies some of the seats are reserved for women. If one assumes, two women filed their nominations and one of them was successful and the defeated candidate did not challenge that election, it cannot be said that any one else challenging the election of the other two candidates namely, reserved for scheduled caste or scheduled tribe or the general seat should necessarily make the women candidates successful as a party for none of the petitioners may be a woman and therefore not entitled to challenge the election to the seat reserved for a woman. Similarly, a person who challenges the election to the reserved seat at an election in a multi member constituency, has nothing to do with the generai seat as he intended to contest only for the reserved seat and his nomination was rejected not only for the general seat but also for the reserved seat, the nomination paper or form being common to both reserved seats and the general seat as mandated by Section 14 (1) of the Act. In fact as enunciated by the supreme Court in V. V. Giri's case' supra, the benefit of reservation under a common electorate is a privilege conferred on the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in addition to the right they already have in common with all citizens. In fact as enunciated by the supreme Court in V. V. Giri's case' supra, the benefit of reservation under a common electorate is a privilege conferred on the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in addition to the right they already have in common with all citizens. ( 18 ) IT is in this context that Section 54 (4) of the Representation of the People Act corresponding to Rule 28 (4) of the Rules assumes some importance. Rule 28 of the Rules is as follows: " (1) to (3 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-rules in the case of election to a mandal Panchayat constituency where seats are reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or women; as the case may be: ( a) If the number of contesting candidates for the reserved seat or seats is equal to or less than the number of reserved seats to be filled the Returning Officer shall declare all such candidates to be duly elected in Forms 17 or 18 as may be appropriate and where the number of the contesting candidates for the non-reserved seats is more than the number of seats to be filled a poll shall be taken for election to fill only such non-reserved seats in such constituency. (b) If the number of contesting candidates for the reserved seat or seats is more than the number of seats to be filled, but the total number of candidates contesting for the election in the constituency is equal to or less than the number of seats to be filled, the Returning Officer shall first select, by lot to be drawn in such manner as he may determine the candidates to be declared elected to the reserved seats out of the candidates qualified to be chosen to fill those seats and then declare the candidates so selected to be duly elected to fill the reserved seats and thereafter declare the remaining candidates to be duly elected to fill the non-reserved seats. The declaration shall be in Forms 17 or 18 as may be appropriate; (c) If the number of contesting candidates qualified to be chosen to fill the reserved seats exceeds the number of such seats and the total number of contesting candidates also exceeds the total number of seats to be filled a poll shall be taken and after the poll has been taken the Returning officer shall first declare those who are qualified to be chosen to fill the reserved seats by securing the largest number of votes to be duly elected to fill the reserved seats and then declare such of the remaining candidates as have secured the largest number of votes to be duly elected to fill the remaining unreserved eats. " ( 19 ) THE arrangement of and language employed in Sub-rule (4) of Rule 28 of the Rules clearly demonstrates that the Returning Officer has to follow strictly what is prescribed in the Rules. Clause (a) of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 28 of the Rules will become operative when the number of candidates who have expressed their willingness to be considered as candidates in terms of section 14 of the Act for the reserved seats or for that of a seat reserved for woman is less then the the number of seats to be filled as such then the candidate shall be declared as elected without contest. Now in all the cases with which we are concerned, it is not in dispute that none of the candidates in the constituencies in question were returned after contest except the one relating to the general seat. Therefore, in so far as the facts of these cases are concerned, Clause (a) of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 28 of the Rules alone has application. ( 20 ) CLAUSE (b) of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 28 of the Rules contemplates a slightly different situation. Therefore, in so far as the facts of these cases are concerned, Clause (a) of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 28 of the Rules alone has application. ( 20 ) CLAUSE (b) of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 28 of the Rules contemplates a slightly different situation. If the number of contesting candidates for the reserved seat or seats is more than the number of seats to be filled, but the total number of candidates contesting for the election in the constituency is equal or less than the number of seats to be filled, the Returning Officer is directed to select by lot to be drawn in such manner as he may determine the candidates who shall be declared elected to the reserved seats out of the candidates qualified to be chosen to fill those seats, that is to say, those who have indicated their intention to stand for the reserved seats in accordance with Section 14 (b) of the Act and thereafter having declared by that procedure, he has to fill the remaining seats by appropriate declaration to fill the non-reserved seat or seats. ( 21 ) BUT, in one of the cases in the present batch of cases on hand we are really concerned with clause (c) of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 28 of the Rules which provides for the contingency of there being more number of candidates contesting for the seat in the constituency and where in fact election has taken place. A particular procedure has to be followed in declaring the results in a multi member constituency consisting of reserved and unreserved seats. The candidates indicating their intention to contest the reserved seats do not by virtue of such intention lose the right to contest the general seat as weli, as held by the Supreme Court in V. V. Giri's case' supra. Therefore, the special procedure contemplated under Clause (c) of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 28 of the rules comes into play when there is contest for all seats in a multi member constituency. ( 22 ) A corresponding provision in the Representation of the People Act fell for direct consideration in V. V. Giri's case and it will be useful to extract the relevant paragraph in that behalf in order to know the correct exposition of law: " (14) Section 54 (4) emphatically brings out the same position. ( 22 ) A corresponding provision in the Representation of the People Act fell for direct consideration in V. V. Giri's case and it will be useful to extract the relevant paragraph in that behalf in order to know the correct exposition of law: " (14) Section 54 (4) emphatically brings out the same position. Section 54 (1) provides that it shall apply in relation to any election in a constituency where the seats to be filled include one or more seats reserved for the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes. Subsection (4) reads thus: "if the number of contesting candidates qualified to be chosen to fill the reserved seats exceeds the number of such seats, and the total number of contesting candidates also exceeds the total number of seats to be filled, a poll shall be taken; and after the poll has been taken, the Returning officer shall first declare those who, being qualified to be chosen to fill the reserved seats, have secured the largest number of votes, to be duly elected to fill the reserved seats, and then declare such of the remaining candidates as have secured the largest number of votes to be duly elected to fill the remaining seats. " on a fair and reasonable construction of this provision there can be no doubt that in a case like the present, after respondent-2 was declared duly elected to the reserved seat, the votes secured by the remaining three candidates had to be considered before declaring the election for the unreserved seat and that is precisely what the Returning Officer has done when he declared that respondent 1 had been duly elected to the said seat. The illustration to this sub-section makes this position clear. This is how illustration reads: "at an election in a constituency to fill four seats of which two are reserved there are six contesting candidates, A, B, C, B, E and F, and they secure votes in descending order, A securing the largest number, B, C and D are qualified to be chosen to fill the reserved seats, while A, E and F are not so qualified. The Returning Officer will first declare B and C duly elected to fill the two reserved seats, and then declare A and D (not A and E) to fill the remaining two seats. The Returning Officer will first declare B and C duly elected to fill the two reserved seats, and then declare A and D (not A and E) to fill the remaining two seats. " in our opinion Section 54 (4) and the illustration are wholly consistent with the relevant provisions of the Constitution and of the Act. " ( 23 ) FROM the above it is clear that notwithstanding the intention the candidate expressed while filing nomination, depending on the number of votes secured by the candidates, under Clause (c) of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 28 of the Rules, the Returning Officer is directed to declare the election of those who are to be chosen for the reserved seats and who have secured the largest number of votes in the constituency. It is only after that is done, the general seat has to be declared to have been duly filled by the candidates who have secured the next highest number of votes than those elected for the reserved seats notwithstanding the fact that such a person may have also expressed his or her intention to contest only the reserved seat even though the candidate contested for reserved seat, say a woman, will have to be declared elected to the general seat. Therefore, once the declaration is made what emerges is that though the election is held for the constituency, candidates are returned to particular seats, reserved or general in the constituency. This is inescapable. It is likely that a person who got declared elected to the reserved, seat by securing the highest number of votes after contest may remain undisturbed in that position by no one challenging the election of that candidate. It may be even possible that a reserved seat may be filled under Clause (a) of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 28 of the Rules, as it appears to be the case here because the reserved seat was filled and appropriate declaration made without contest, whatever the reason. ( 24 ) THEREFORE, I need not trouble myself with Clause (c) of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 28 of the Rules on the facts of these cases since some of the successful candidates have been returned unopposed. ( 24 ) THEREFORE, I need not trouble myself with Clause (c) of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 28 of the Rules on the facts of these cases since some of the successful candidates have been returned unopposed. ( 25 ) IN that context, it cannot be said that they were returned unopposed for the whole of the constituency, but they were returned unopposed and declaration made only in regard to the reserved seat. ( 26 ) THEREFORE, in the light of the analysis as above, returned candidates' occurring in Sub-section (2) (a) of Section 14 of the Act must be read down to mean the candidate returned to a particular seat in the constituency whose election has been questioned. The mere employment of the term "candidates" does not make any difference having regard to the provision in the General Clauses act in regard to interpretation of statutes, singular includes the plural and vice-versa. ( 27 ) MR. P. Viswanatha Shetty, learned Counsel for the petitioners, made an attempt to contend that in the context itself Clause (c) of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 28 of the Rules is attracted and not clause (a) of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 28 of the Rules. His argument was as earlier noticed that a person securing the highest number of votes would be eligible to be declared for the reserved seats under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 28 of the Rules and even if for any reason he is or she is unseated, she would be entitled to the general seat if she has secured the next highest number of votes. It is true that it would be so if Clause (c) of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 28 of the Rules is attracted to a given set of facts. But in the present cases on hand the reserved seats were returned unopposed. Then the question of pressing into service Clause (c) of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 28 of the Rules does not arise as there was no contest. If the reserved seat was filled without contest and the candidate accepted the declaration, he cannot later be permitted to urge that had there been a contest, he or she would be entitled to be reckoned for the general seat and therefore "returned candidates" should be given the widest meaning possible to include all candidates who are declared elected to the constituency. This to my mind appears to be wholly inappropriate and absurd. ( 28 ) THE mandate of the rule is such that the Returning Officer is bound to make a declaration and once a declaration is made declaring a candidate elected duly to a reserved seat whether it be one reserved for a woman candidate or a scheduled caste candidate that candidate loses the right to contest the general seat. Therefore, question of visualising a contest in such contingency does not arise. In that sense, as in the cases on hand, if some candidate who presented nomination paper for a reserved seat was rejected on whatever ground and therefore he lost an opportunity of contesting the election, then the only proper and necessary party is the candidate who has been returned to the particular reserved seat and not the candidates returned for other seats reserved or general in the constituency. ( 29 ) THE correctness of this interpretation becomes doubly assured if the following illustration is taken notice of. In the example I have already taken if the constituency consists of a reserved seat for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, a woman and a general seat two women filling nomination indicating that they are contesting the election for the reserved seat as well and one of the nomination papers is rejected, the remaining woman candidate is declared elected under clause (a) of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 28 of the Rules and the candidate whose nomination is rejected challenges the correctness of the rejection, it would be unthinkable that the candidate who has filled the scheduled castes seat or the candidate who has filled the general seat would be necessary parties in an election petition where the question relates only to the seat reserved for women particularly when the other two seats, that is, scheduled castes or scheduled tribes or the general seat happens to have been filled in by men. ( 30 ) IN such a situation, the only course open to avoid the predicament is for the candidate to refuse the declaration and contest for the general seat if that is permissible. ( 31 ) BUT once a candidate accepts the declaration, it wilt not be open to him or her to canvass that she was capable of contesting for the general seat also. ( 31 ) BUT once a candidate accepts the declaration, it wilt not be open to him or her to canvass that she was capable of contesting for the general seat also. Therefore, if the narrower view is taken, it is likely, it will not lead to any anamalous situation pointed out earlier. The returned candidate in Section 14 (2) (a) of the Act refers only to the candidate returned to a particular seat even in a multi member constituency and not to the whole constituency. ( 32 ) SOME support for this is found in what has been pointed out by Mr. M. Veerappa Moily, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents who were the persons who filed the election petitions. He has drawn my attention to the statement of objects and reasons when amendment was made to Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act which reads as follows: "section 82 provides that all the duly nominated candidates shall be joined as respondents to an election petition. Even in the case of elections to the House of the People or a State Legislative assembly, particularly in plural-member constituencies, the number of duly nominated candidates has been very large, with the result that the service of notices on them takes a very long time and holds up the trial of the election petition. Naturally, it is only the returned candidate who takes any interest in contesting the election petition. Moreover, there is a provision in Section 90 which enables any other candidate to join as a respondent. It is accordingly proposed in this clause that Section 82 should be revised so that it is necessary revised so that it is necessary that Section 82 should be revised so that it is necessary to join as respondents only those candidates who are interested prima facie in the outcome of the petition. " ( 33 ) FROM the above it is clear that Parliament was aware that the proper and necessary party would be the contesting candidate and not necessarily all the candidates who are only formal parties. This has been noticed only as an aid to construction and not as a decisive factor. " ( 33 ) FROM the above it is clear that Parliament was aware that the proper and necessary party would be the contesting candidate and not necessarily all the candidates who are only formal parties. This has been noticed only as an aid to construction and not as a decisive factor. ( 34 ) BUT, In the case of KRISHAN CHANDER v. RAM LAL AIR1973 sc 2513 , (1973 )2 SCC759 , [1974 ]1 SCR349 the Supreme Court did rule that Section 82 (b) of the Representation of the People Act in the matter of joining of parties to the election petition is mandatory and where a candidate challenges the validity of an election on the ground of corrupt practice and alleges inter alia on the basis of information received by him that some defeated candidates have committed corrupt practice, the mere fact that he has not disclosed the source of information does not entitle him to dispense with the requirement of impleading those candidates as parties to the petition. When allegations are based on information received, Rule 94-A of the conduct of Election Rules does not require that the source of information must be set out. In other words a situation is not over-looked having regard to the fact that it is not only a successful candidate who may be necessary party to an election petition, but also other candidates who contested if there has been allegations of malpractice committed by them in an election petition presented under the Representation of the People Act not only to secure a declaration in one's own favour or to challenge the election of a particular candidate but also to maintain the purity of elections and bring to justice those who have violated the statutory provisions and indulged in corrupt practice in order to obtain success at the election, those successful candidates may have evaded them. ( 35 ) THEREFORE, when one has to look at it in the broader perspective, one is left with no choice but to see that when a petitioner does not seek a declaration in his own favour, he is not asking for anything more than setting aside the election of a particular candidate or candidates as the case may be. ( 35 ) THEREFORE, when one has to look at it in the broader perspective, one is left with no choice but to see that when a petitioner does not seek a declaration in his own favour, he is not asking for anything more than setting aside the election of a particular candidate or candidates as the case may be. But if he is seeking setting aside the election of a particular candidate, the returned candidate occurring in Sub-section (2) (a) of Section 14 of the Act must be read down to include only the candidate whose election is sought to be set aside and not all returned candidates in a multi member constituency. ( 36 ) IN that view of the matter, it is unnecessary for this Court to refer to the other decisions cited by the Counsel for the parties at the Bar in regard to the mandatory nature of Section 14 of the act. In Krishan Chander's case supra it has been held that Section 82 of the Representation of the people Act is mandatory. Therefore, Section 14 (2) (a) of the Act which is in pari materia with section 82 of the Representation of the People Act must also be held to be mandatory. But that does not mean that on a proper construction if only the affected candidate alone is made party and this Court is satisfied that he was the returned candidate and none else, then it is unnecessary to apply the rigour of the mandatory character of Section 14 (2) (a) of the Act and hold that all candidates returned in the multi member constituency should be necessary parties. ( 37 ) FOR the above reasons, there is no merit in these petitions and they are accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances of these cases, there will be no order as to costs.