JUDGMENT 1. The Municipal Board of Jaswant Nagar (hereinafter referred to as Board) in the district of Etawah was constituted in November, 1988. Sri Jiteudra Kumar Jain, the petitioner, was elected one of the members of the Board and Sri Amarnath Gupta was elected as a Chairman of the Board. A notice of no confidence motion was presented in the month of May, 1990. This writ petition, thereupon, was filed by Jitendra Kumar Jain seeking quashing of the notice of no confidence motion and also the resolution as may be passed in the meeting to be held on 11th June, 1990. In addition, he also sought a declaration that the U. P. Local Self Government Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 1990, was ultravires. 2. On 1-6-1990, an application was moved on behalf of Amarnath Gupta for being impleaded as a co-petitioner in this petition. Before this application could be taken up for consideration, another application had been moved by the petitioner Sri Jitendra Kumar Jain for withdrawal of this petition. In the meantime, another writ petition has been moved by Amarnath Gupta on 16-7-1990, seeking to quash the minutes of the meeting held on 11-6 - 1990, and asking for a declaration that the entire proceedings including the notice of intention were null and void. 3. When the applications for withdrawal and implement came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant Sri Amarnath Gupta wanted the implement application to be determined before the withdrawal application was taken up. 4. The application for implement has been opposed on behalf of the petitioner and also the respondents, The application for being impleaded was pressed on the ground that the applicant was entitled to be impleaded because the petition itself has been filed for his benefit and, therefore, he was a necessary party. It was also urged that this dispute was in the nature of an election dispute and, therefore, he was entitled to substitute the petitioner in case he seeks to withdraw. It was also urged that under the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 (2) CPC or the principles underlying this provision, he was entitled to be. impleaded as a co-petitioner in this petition. 5. It was also urged that under the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 (2) CPC or the principles underlying this provision, he was entitled to be. impleaded as a co-petitioner in this petition. 5. The application was opposed primarily on the grounds that another petition having been filed by the applicant for substantially the same reliefs, his being impleaded would result in multifariousness; that no person could be impleaded as a co-petitioner without the consent of the existing petitioner and that in any case application for withdrawal of the petition having been filed, there was no lis pending for the applicant to be joint 6. Before considering the contention of the parties, it may be pointed out that the writ petition no. 16757 of 1990 has been filed by the applicant Amarnath Gupta on 16-7-1990 after the meeting of the Board had been held in pursuance of the notice. In that petition, therefore, the relief claimed is more comprehensive inasmuch as the minutes of the meeting themselves are sought to be quashed and the notice of intention, the notice of convening the meeting and the proceedings are sought to be declared as illegal and unconstitutional. Another fact which need be mentioned here is that the petitioner in that writ petition has taken almost all the grounds taken by the petitioner in this case. 7. As a result, if the applicant Amarnath Gupta is not impleaded in the present petition, he still has another petition to press in which all the relief which was sought in the present petition would still be available to him. His not being impleaded in the present petition would not cause any injury to his right. 8. On behalf of the applicant, reliance was placed on the case of Press Trust of India v. Union of India, AIR 1974 SC 1044 . In this case in addition to an appeal two writ petitions were filed challenging an order issued by the Union of India accepting the recommendations of wage Board constituted under the working Journalists (conditions of service and Miscellaneous Provions) Act, 1955. In one of the petitions, the first petitioner was a limited company while the other was Sri A B. Nair. In the second writ petition, in addition to Limited Company, Sri Uma Shanker Dikshit was the petitioner. In one of the petitions, the first petitioner was a limited company while the other was Sri A B. Nair. In the second writ petition, in addition to Limited Company, Sri Uma Shanker Dikshit was the petitioner. Sri A. B. Nair died during the pendency of the petition while an application had been moved to delete the name of Uma Shanker Dikshit, who had been appointed a Minister. It was urged before the Supreme Court that the Limited Company being the only remaining petitioner, benefit of Article 19 of the Constitution could not be claimed by them for challenging the award. An application was moved by Jai Kumar Karnani, who was a shareholder in the Company, to be substituted in the place of the deceased Nair. The Supreme Court held as follows : "Even if we reject the prayer in the second petition (CM- P. No. 1034 of 1974 in Writ Petition No. 40 of J968) as there is nothing to debar a Central Minister from continuing to be a petitioner, the petitioners cannot be denied relief under Article 19. Similarly, if we reject the prayer in the first petition (Writ Petition No. 37 of 1968) on a technical plea that the second respondent having died no relief can be granted under Article 19, there is nothing to prevent another writ petition being filed by a share holder of the first petitioner company, challenging the impugned order under Article 19. The rejection of the prayer, therefore, will merely prolong the litigation." As would be seen here, the implement was permitted only because the petitioner could not have availed themselves of a plea against the award under Article 19 of the Constitution and the determination without the petitioner would not have been final. As he could have brought another writ petition, the Supreme Court wanted to avoid the delay and duplicity of proceedings to implead Sri Karnani 9. Neither of the consideration has a relevance in the present case. It has been admitted by the applicant himself in his application for being impleaded that complete relief could be granted to the petitioner, in para 7 of the affidavit. 10. Again, if he is not impleaded he will not be driven to file another petition. To the contrary, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, his impleadment would result in duplicity of proceedings as there already is another petition pending. 10. Again, if he is not impleaded he will not be driven to file another petition. To the contrary, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, his impleadment would result in duplicity of proceedings as there already is another petition pending. Another case relied upon by the petitioner is Kashi Nath Pandey v. Shibban Lai Saxena, AIR 1959 Alld. 54. In this, case an Election Petition had been filed by one Kapil Deo, an elector, challenging the election of Kashi Nath Pandey. Shibban Lai Saxena, another candidate, was one of the respondents. An application for withdrawal was moved on behalf of Kapil Deo, which was opposed. The withdrawal was allowed. notice was, thereupon, published in the Official Gazette, in pursuance of which Shibban Lal Saxena made an application for being substituted as a petitioner. In this case the court merely interpreted the words, "who might himself have been a petitioner", appearing in section 110 (3) (c) of the Representation of the People Act, to find that such a person should have, firstly, a right concurrent with the petitioner, secondly, he should be entitled to come before the same court, thirdly, he should have an identical cause of action and, fourthly, he should be able to claim an identical relief. The learned counsel for the applicant urged that he fulfilled these criteria and was, therefore, entitled to be impleaded in place of the petitioner. 11. The Representation of the People Act specifically lays down procedure for withdrawal of an Election Petition in Chapter IV. It also provides that when the petitioner withdraws a petition, a person, who might himself have been a petitioner may apply to be substituted as a petitioner. 12. However, these are statutory provisions specifically provided for the Election Petitions. These provisions cannot, as such, be applied to the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. A person has an unbridled right to withdraw a writ petition while the right to withdraw an Election Petition is hedged by the aforesaid statutory provisions. These provisions or the aforesaid case in which these provisions were given effect to, cannot be taken advantage of by the applicant merely because he happens to satisfy some of the qualifications which are necessary for a person under those proceedings to be substituted in place of the Election petitioner. Order 1 Rule 10 CPC provides for joinder of parties. 13. Order 1 Rule 10 CPC provides for joinder of parties. 13. Under sub-rule 2 : "Any person who ought to have been joint whether as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the question involved in the- suit" may be added as a party. To be joined as a party under this provision, a person should be one without whose presence the court may not be able to effectively and completely adjudicate. This provision is primarily used to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and also to see that the suits are completely and finally adjudicated. 14. In the present case, admittedly the petition can be effectively decided without the applicant being joined. The applicant also has himself initiated a separate writ proceeding in which all the reliefs can be made available to him. Therefore, neither of these two factors weigh in favour of the applicant to enable him to take advantage of these provisions, even if it is held that principles underlying the provisions of Order I Rule 10 (2) CPC are -applicable in the present case. None of the grounds pressed by the applicant in support of his being impleaded, therefore, are tenable. The present petitioner has vehemently opposed the application of the applicant. Two petitioners having different interests would embarrass the proceedings 15. Considering the contention of the parties, we do riot find that the applicant is entitled to be impleaded in this writ petition. His application for impleadment is, therefore, hereby rejected. 16. The petitioner Jitendra Kumar Jain has applied for withdrawal of the petition. This has not been opposed by any of the parties. The application for withdrawal of the writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The writ petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. Petition dismissed.