Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 52 (CHH)

SHAKUNTALA SINGH v. DAURAM RATANKAR

2002-07-12

FAKHRUDDIN

body2002
FAIZAN UDDIN, J. ( 1 ) ( 2 ) ONE of the issues (No. 3) framed in the case is whether the Returning Officer is a proper party, if so effect? ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent No. 1 raised objection in paragraph 19 of the written statement, which reads as under :"that all the allegations in the petition are made against the Returning Officer that he has not fairly and imparitially discharged his official duty. The petitioner also made the absurd allegations that the respondent No. 1 pressurized the Returning Officer during the counting. It is humbly submitted that the respondent No. 1 does not belong to a party, which has a government in Madhya Pradesh. The entire allegations of unfairness and favouritism during the counting were made against the returning officer. Therefore, though the Returning Officer is not a necessary party but a proper party in this Election Petition to answer and rebut the allegations made against him. Therefore, on this ground alone the petition is liable to be dismissed. " ( 4 ) SO far as joining of the parties especially Returning Officer in the election petition is concerned, law is well settled by the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal reported in AIR 1982 SC 983. The Court took the view that the public policy and legislative wisdom both seem to point to an interpretation of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, which does not permit the joining, as parties, of persons other than those mentioned in Sections 82 and 86 (4 ). The Court also in paragraph (12) considered the consequences if persons other than those mentioned in Section 82 are permitted to be added as parties and held that the necessary consequences would be an unending, disorderly election dispute with no hope of achieving the goal contemplated by Section 86 (6) of the Act. In the aforesaid premises, we reiterate the view taken by this Court in Jyoti Basu's case (1982) 1 SCC 691 and reaffirmed in the latter case of B. Sundara Rami Reddy v. Election Commission of India and we see no infirmity with the impugned judgment, requiring our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. In the aforesaid premises, we reiterate the view taken by this Court in Jyoti Basu's case (1982) 1 SCC 691 and reaffirmed in the latter case of B. Sundara Rami Reddy v. Election Commission of India and we see no infirmity with the impugned judgment, requiring our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. ( 5 ) THE Supreme Court in unequivocal terms has clarified that none may be joined as a party to the election petition otherwise than as provided by Sections 82 and 86 (4) of the Act. It follows that a person, who is not a candidate, may not be joined as a respondent to the election petition. The argument that though not under Section 82 but under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, Returning Officer and other persons can be joined as parties to the petition was negatived and Chinnappa Reddy, J. speaking for the Court, observed :"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 Representation of the People Act does not. Obviously, the provisions of the Code cannot be so invoked. "he was further pleased to observe :"concepts familiar to Common Law and equity must remain strangers to Election Law unless statutorily embodied. A Court has no right to resort to them on considerations of alleged policy because policy in such matters, as those relating to the trial of election disputes, is what the Statute lays down. In the trial of the election disputes, Court is put in a strait jackets. ""it is clear that the contest of the election petition is designed to be confined to the candidates at the election. All others are excluded. The ring is closed to all except the petitioner and the candidate at the election. If such is the design of the Statute, how can the notion of 'proper parties enter the picture at all? 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. The ring is closed to all except the petitioner and the candidate at the election. If such is the design of the Statute, how can the notion of 'proper parties enter the picture at all? 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 dispute who are mentioned in Sections 82 and 86 (4) and no others. However, desirable and expedient it may appear to be, none else shall be joined as respondents. ( 6 ) THE Supreme Court recently in case of Michael B. Fernandes v. C. K. Jaffar Sharief reported in (2002) 2 JT (SC) 87, held as under :"on a plain reading of Section 82, which indicates as to the person who can be joined as a respondent to an election petition, the conclusion is irresistible that the returned candidate, the candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice have been made are to be joined as party respondent when declaration is sought for holding the election of the returned candidate to be void and when a prayer is made as to any other candidate to be declared to be duly elected, then all the contesting candidates are required to be made party respondents. On a literal interpretation of the aforesaid provisions of Section 82, therefore, it can be said that an election petition which does not make the person enumerated in Section 82 of the Act, as party respondents, is liable to be dismissed. ( 7 ) THE Apex Court reiterated the view taken by this Court in case of Jyoti Basu (supra) and which was reaffirmed in case of B. Sundara Rami Reddy v. Election Commission of India reported in (1991) Supp (2) SCC 624 where the Court held that no infirmity has been found in the impugned order, requiring their Lordships' interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. ( 8 ) IN view of discussion made hereinabove and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Michael B. Fernandes v. C. K. Jaffar Sharief (supra) the Returning Officer is not a proper party and as such the issue is decided against the respondents accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( 9 ) THE case now be listed for further hearing on 26-8-2002. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( 9 ) THE case now be listed for further hearing on 26-8-2002. Order accordingly. --- *** ---