JUDGMENT :- Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties the petitions are taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3. All these petitions raise an identical question in respect of necessary party in election petition presented under the provisions of section 21 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the "Municipal Act".) 4. Petitions are presented before the District Court raising challenge to the elections of the returned candidates from different wards of Municipal Council, Bhusawal. Petitioners herein are arrayed as respondents to the election petition. On perusal of election dispute filed by the petitioners before the District Court, it is not a matter of controversy that certain allegations in respect of commission of corrupt practices have been levelled against the petitioners herein. Apart from impleading the returned candidate as a party to the petition before the District Court, the petitioners being the persons against whom allegations in respect of corrupt practice are levelled are also joined as party. An application was therefore presented by the petitioners herein to the District Court requesting the Court to pass an order to strike off the names of the petitioners. It is the contention of the petitioners herein that they cannot be joined as party to the petition as they were not the candidates at election to the concerned ward. It is also contended that joinder of the petitioners in election petition is not in accordance with the provisions of section 21(4) of the Municipal Act. It is therefore contended that the petitioners not being the candidates at the election from the concerned ward or they being not the parties within contemplation of section 21 (4) of the Municipal Act, their impleadment to the election petition is bad and as such their names are required to be struck off. The application was opposed by the election petitioners contending that they are necessary and proper parties as provided under Order 1, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is also contended that there are allegations in respect of corrupt practice levelled against them. As such they are necessary and proper party. 5. The application was opposed by the election petitioners contending that they are necessary and proper parties as provided under Order 1, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is also contended that there are allegations in respect of corrupt practice levelled against them. As such they are necessary and proper party. 5. The learned trial Judge while rejecting the application tendered by the petitioners herein ruled that in view of provisions of Order 1, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioners herein are necessary party. It was also observed by the learned Judge of the trial Court that there are allegations in respect of corrupt practice levelled against them and as such it cannot be said that they are not the necessary party. Order passed by the District Judge - 2, Jalgaon rejecting the application tendered by petitioners is subjected to challenge in all these petitions. 6. I have perused the application as well as the impugned order passed by the trial Court. I have also heard arguments advanced by Shri P.M. Shah, learned Senior Counsel, holding for Shri S.P. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri R.N. Dhorde, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Shri S.T. Shelke, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and Shri Mukul Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent No.5. It is contended by Shri Shah, learned senior counsel that the petitioners are not the party within contemplation of section 21 of the Municipal Act who can be arrayed as respondents to the election petition. It is contended that the technology used as candidate in sub-section (4)(c) of section 21 of the Municipal Act necessarily means a candidate at elections to the concerned ward which is subjected to challenge in the election petition. It is also contended that the concept of proper party is alien to election law. The provisions of Order 1, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not govern the field of proper party to election petition. It is contended that section 21 of the Municipal Act is a complete code in itself and impleadment of party to the election petition shall have to be strictly in accordance with the provisions of section 21 of the Act. It is therefore contended that the view adopted by the trial Court is erroneous and as such the impugned order passed by the trial Court needs to be set aside. 7. It is therefore contended that the view adopted by the trial Court is erroneous and as such the impugned order passed by the trial Court needs to be set aside. 7. Shri Dhorde, learned counsel for the respondents/election petitioners before the trial Court has supported the order passed in the election petition. It is contended that there are allegations contained in the petition in respect of corrupt practices committed by the petitioners herein at the elections in question and as such their impleadment to the petition is necessary. It is also canvassed by learned counsel Shri Dhorde that a narrow interpretation cannot be put to subsection (4)(c) of section 21 of the Municipal Act. The petitioners herein are candidates at election to the Bhusawal Municipal Council, may be from different wards. However, they are necessary parties to the petition. It is also contended that the provisions of Order 1, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the concept of proper parties apply with equal force to election. petition also. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, according to learned counsel for the respondents, are applicable as far as possible to the extent where no specific provision is made in the special law i.e. municipal law. 8. In order to consider the questions raised in the petition, it would be proper to refer to certain relevant provisions of the Municipal Law as well as the provisions of Representation of People Act which are identical to a large extent. 8. In order to consider the questions raised in the petition, it would be proper to refer to certain relevant provisions of the Municipal Law as well as the provisions of Representation of People Act which are identical to a large extent. So far as constitutional provisions relating to bar to interference by the Courts in electoral matters is concerned, so far as it relates to municipal elections, is governed by Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India which reads thus :Article 243-ZG : Bar to inteiference by Courts in electoral matters: (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 243-ZF shall be called in question in any Court; (b) no election to any Municipality shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and 'in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State.' It is thus clear that for calling in question elections to the municipal council, a petition is required to be presented to the prescribed authority and the challenge is to be dealt with in a manner provided by the law made by the Legislature of the State i.e. Municipal Act. As per the constitutional provisions therefore the election petitions calling in question the elections to the municipal councils are required to be dealt with under the Municipalities Act and no other deviation in procedure can be adopted. 9. In this view of the matter, it would be appropriate to refer to provisions of section 21 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act which relates to disputes in respect of elections which are thus: Section 21 : Disputes in respect of election nomination of Councillors. 9. In this view of the matter, it would be appropriate to refer to provisions of section 21 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act which relates to disputes in respect of elections which are thus: Section 21 : Disputes in respect of election nomination of Councillors. - (1) No election, or nomination of a Councillor may be called in question, except by a petition presented to the District Court, by a candidate at the election or by any person entitled to vote at the election, within ten days from the date of publication of the names of the Councillors in the Official Gazette under section 19 or 20, as the case may be; (2) Any such petition a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies; b) shall, with sufficient particulars, set forth the ground or grounds on which the election, or nomination is called in question; and c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, V of 1908 for the verification of pleadings. (3) A petitioner may claim all or anyone of the following declarations: a) that the election of all or anyone of the returned candidates is void; or b) that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void and that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected; or c) that the nomination of all or any of the nominated Councillors is void. (4) A petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition a) where the petitioner claims a declaration under clause (a) of subsection (3), the returned candidate or candidates in respect of whom such declaration is claimed; b) where the petitioner claims a declaration under clause (b) of subsection (3), all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner; c) any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt or illegal practice are made in the petition. d) where the petitioner claims a declaration under clause (c) of subsection (3) all or any of the nominated Councillors in respect of whom such declaration is claimed and the council who .( nominated the Councillor member. d) where the petitioner claims a declaration under clause (c) of subsection (3) all or any of the nominated Councillors in respect of whom such declaration is claimed and the council who .( nominated the Councillor member. (5) Such petition shall be inquired into and disposed of by the District Judge or by any judge not lower in rank than an Assistant Judge to whom the case or such cases generally may be referred to by the District Judge. (6) All petitions under sub-section (1)a) in which the validity of the election of Councillors elected to represent the same ward is in question shall be heard by the same Judge; and b) in which the validity of the election of the same Councillor elected to represent the same ward is in question shall be heard together. 7) For the trial of such petition, the Judge shall have all the powers of a Civil Court including powers in respect of the following matters: a) discovery and inspection; b) enforcing the attendance of witnesses and requiring the deposit of their expenses; c) compelling the production of documents; d) examining witnesses on oath e) granting adjournments; f) reception of evidence on affidavit; and g) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses; And the Judge may summon and examine suo motu any person whose evidence appears to him to be material. The judge shall be deemed to be a Civil Court, within the meaning of section 480 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. (See now the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (11 of 1974) (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) the Judge shall not permit a) any application to be compromised or withdrawn; or b) any person to alter or amend any pleading, unless he is satisfied that such application for compromise or withdrawal or the application for such alteration or amendment is bona fide and not collusive. (9) The Judge, after such inquiry as he deems necessary, may pass suitable order and his order shall be conclusive. (9) The Judge, after such inquiry as he deems necessary, may pass suitable order and his order shall be conclusive. (10) If the petitioners has, in addition to calling in question the election of the returned candidate, claimed a declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected and the Judge is satisfied that a) the petitioner or such other candidate received sufficient number of valid votes to have been elected; or b) but for the votes obtained by the returned candidate by corrupt practices the petitioner or such other candidate would have obtained a sufficient number of valid votes to have been elected; the Judge may, after declaring the election of the returned candidate void, declare the petitioners or such other candidate to have been duly elected : Provided that i) for the purpose of such computation, no vote shall be reckoned as valid if the Judge finds that any corrupt practice was committed by any person known or unknown in giving or obtaining it; ii) after such computation, if any equality of vote is found to exist between any candidates and the addition of one vote would entitle any of the candidates to be declared elected, one additional vote shall be added to the total number of valid votes found to have been recorded in favour of the candidate, or candidates, as the case may be, selected by lot drawn in the presence of the Judge in such manner as he may determine. (11) Where any charge is made in the petition of any Corrupt Practice the Judge shall make an order recording the names of all persons including any candidates, if any, who have been proved at the trial to have been guilty of any corrupt practice and the nature of that practice and may disqualify and such person for becoming a Councillor or Member of any other local authority for such period not exceeding six years but not less than two years from the date of the order, as the Judge may specify in the order: Provided that, no person shall be named in such order unless a) he has been given notice to appear before the Judge and to show cause why he should not be so named; and b) if he appears in pursuance of the notice, he has been given an opportunity of cross-examining any witness who has already been examined by the Judge and has given evidence against him, of calling evidence in his defence and of being heard. [(11A) If the validity of any election is called in question only on the ground of an error made by an officer charged with carrying out the provisions of clauses (b) or (c) of sub-section (2) of section 9 or of the rules made under section 17 or of an irregularity or informality not corruptly caused, the Judge shall not set aside the election.] (12) If the Judge sets aside the election of candidate on the ground that a corrupt practice has been committed by the returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent and if such candidate's name has not been included in any order made under sub-section (11), the Judge shall declare such candidate disqualified for becoming a councillor or a Councillor or Member of any other local authority of such period not exceeding six years but not less than two years from the date of the order, as the Judge may specify in the order. (13) The Judge may also make an order fixing the total amount of costs payable and specifying the person by and to whom costs shall be paid. Such costs shall be recoverable as if they had been awarded in a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908). (13) The Judge may also make an order fixing the total amount of costs payable and specifying the person by and to whom costs shall be paid. Such costs shall be recoverable as if they had been awarded in a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908). Sub-section (4) of section 21 provides for joinder of parties so also as per the provisiorls of sub-section (7) of section 21, the Judge trying the election petition is invested with the powers of civil Court in respect of matters specified at (a) to (g) of sub-section (7) of section 21. It is to be noted here that where charge is levelled in the petition in respect of corrupt practice, the Judge may, if it is proved at the trial that any person including. any candidate is guilty of corrupt practice, pass an order disqualifying such person from becoming the Councillor or member of any other local authority for a period not exceeding six years but not less than two years. Identical provisions find place in the Representation of the People Act, 1950 in respect of joinder of parties and the order to be made by the High Court in the election petition which are: Section 82 : Parties of the petition A petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition(a) where the petitioner, in addition to claiming 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. Section 99 : Other orders to be made by the High Court (1) At the time of making an order under section 98 of the High Court shall also make an order (a) where any charge is made in the petition of any corrupt practice having been committed at the election, recording i) a finding whether any corrupt practice has or has not been proved to have been committed at the election, and the nature of that corrupt practice; and ii) the names of all persons, if any, who have been proved at the trial to have been guilty of any corrupt practice and the nature of that practice and (b) fixing the total amount of costs payable and specifying the persons by and to whom costs shall be paid : Provided that a person who is not a party to the petition shall not be named in the order under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) unless(a) he has been given notice to appear before the High Court and to show cause why he should not be so named; and (b) if he appears in pursuance of the notice, he has been given an opportunity of cross-examining any witness who has already been examined by the High Court and has given evidence against him, of calling , evidence in his defence and of being heard. (2) In this section and in section 100, the expression "agent" has the saine meaning as in section 123. On perusal of the order passed by the District Judge, it appears that the trial Judge found that the petitioners are the proper parties to the petition within contemplation of Order 1, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is also recorded by the learned trial Judge that there are allegations in respect of commission of corrupt practices contained in the election petition and as such the petitioners are the necessary parties to the petition. The question of impleadment as "proper party" has arisen before the Apex Court in the matter of Michal B. Fernandes vs. C. K. Jaffer Shariff and others, reported in (2002) 3 SCC 521 . The question of impleadment as "proper party" has arisen before the Apex Court in the matter of Michal B. Fernandes vs. C. K. Jaffer Shariff and others, reported in (2002) 3 SCC 521 . While considering the question relating to proper parties in accordance with the provisions of section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, the Apex Court has observed thus :"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 is 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 persons enumerated in section 82 of the Act, as party respondents, is liable to be dismissed. The two decisions of this Court directly on the question are the cases of Jyoti Basu VS. Debi Ghosal and B. Sundara Rami Reddy vs. Election Commission of India. In the former case, Chinnappa Reddy, J., speaking for the Court, held that right to elect or to be elected or dispute regarding election are neither fundamental rights nor common law rights but are confined to the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and consequently, rights and remedies are all limited to those provided by the statutory provisions. On the question of joinder of parties, referring to sections 82 and 86(4) of the. Representation of the People Act, it was held that the contest of the election petition is designed to be confined to the candidates at the election and all others are excluded and, therefore, only those may be joined as respondents to an election petition, who are mentioned in sections 82 and 86(4) and no others. Representation of the People Act, it was held that the contest of the election petition is designed to be confined to the candidates at the election and all others are excluded and, therefore, only those may be joined as respondents to an election petition, who are mentioned in sections 82 and 86(4) and no others. An argument had been advanced in that case that even if somebody may not be a necessary party under section 82 of the Act, but yet he could be added as a proper party as provided in Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but the Court rejected that contention on a finding that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code apply to election disputes only as far as may be and subject to the provisions of the Act and any rules made thereunder and the provisions of the Code cannot be invoked to permit that which is not permissible under the Act. It was in that context the Court further observed that the concept of "proper parties" is and remains alien to an election dispute under the Act. This decision was followed in B. Sundara Rami Reddy case referred to supra and it was reiterated that the concept of "proper party" is and must remain alien to an election dispute under the Act and only those may be joined as respondents to an election petition, who are mentioned in sections 82 and 86(4) of the Act and no others." While considering the questions relating to impleadment of proper parties in the matter of B. Sundara vs. Election Commission of India, reported in 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 624 which was also a matter in respect of challenge raised under the provisions of Representation of the People Act, while considering the provisions of section 82 of the Act, the Apex Court observed that the concept of joinder of proper parties to a suit as provided under Order 1, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be imported to the trial of election petition. It is also observed by the Apex Court that the Representation of the People Act is a self contained Code and it does not contemplate joinder of a person or authority to an election petition on the ground of proper party. It is also observed by the Apex Court that the Representation of the People Act is a self contained Code and it does not contemplate joinder of a person or authority to an election petition on the ground of proper party. It is also mandated by the Apex Court that however, desirable and expedient, it may not be proper to join any other party as respondent except within contemplation of the provisions of sections 82 and 86(4) of the Act. Relevant observations are made in paragraph No.4 of the judgment which are thus: "Since section 82 designates the persons who are to be joined as respondents to the petition, provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 relating to the joinder of parties stands excluded. Under the Code even if a party is not necessary party, he is required to be joined as a party to a suit or proceedings if such person is a proper party, but the representation of the People Act, 1951 does not provide for joinder of a proper party to an election petition. The concept of joining a proper party to an election petition is ruled out by the provisions of the Act. The concept of joinder of a proper party to a suit or proceeding underlying Order I of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be imported to the trial of election petition, in view of the express provisions of sections 82 and 87 of the Act. The Act is a self-contained Code which does not contemplate joinder of a person or authority to an election petition on the ground of proper party. In K. Venkateswara Rao vs. Bekkam Narasimha Reddi, this Court while discussing the application of Order I, Rule 10 of the Civil procedure Code to an election petition held that there could not be any addition of parties in the case of an election petition except under the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 86 of the Act. Again in Jyoti Basu VS. Debi Ghosal, this Court held that the concept of 'proper party' 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 petition who are mentioned in section 82 and section 86(4) and no others. Again in Jyoti Basu VS. Debi Ghosal, this Court held that the concept of 'proper party' 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 petition who are mentioned in section 82 and section 86(4) and no others. However desirable and expedient it may appear to be, none else shall be joined as respondents." Reliance is placed by respondents on a judgment in the matter of Jyoti Basu VS. Debi Ghosal, reported in AIR 1982 SC 983 . However, on perusal of the judgment I find that the similar preposition of law has been laid down as quoted above in the judgment of B. Sundara VS. Election Commission of India. In Jyoti Basu's matter, the Apex Court has ruled that no one may be joined as party to an election petition otherwise than as provided by sections 82 and 86(4) of the Act. A person who is not a candidate shall not be joined as respondent to the election petition. In view of law laid down by the Apex Court and on consideration of provisions of section 21 of the Municipalities Act, it is clear that the concept of proper party is alien to the election petition presented under the provisions of Municipalities Act. Provisions of Order 1, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of joinder of parties cannot be made applicable to the election petitions presented under section 21 of the Act. The view adopted by the learned trial Judge that the petitioners herein are proper parties to the petition, therefore cannot be accepted. 10. Now argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondents in respect of the petitioners being candidates of elections against whom allegations of commission of corrupt practice are levelled are necessary parties within contemplation of section 21 of the Municipalities Act, is required to be considered. Section 21 provides for a remedy to raise challenge to election/nomination of Councillors. The very purpose of presentation of election petition under section 21 of the Municipalities Act is for calling in question the election or nomination of "a Councillor". Municipal council consists of number of Councillors who are required to be elected from different wards. Section 21 provides for a remedy to raise challenge to election/nomination of Councillors. The very purpose of presentation of election petition under section 21 of the Municipalities Act is for calling in question the election or nomination of "a Councillor". Municipal council consists of number of Councillors who are required to be elected from different wards. Election petitions presented before the trial Court wherein the impugned orders are passed are presented calling in question elections of returned candidates from different wards. It is thus clear that the election of whole of the municipal council is not subjected to challenge and cannot be so challenged in the petitions presented to the trial Court by taking recourse of section 21 of the Municipalities Act. The petitions presented raise challenge to an election of an individual Councillor from the respective wards. The term any other candidate appearing in sub-section (4)(c) of section 21 will have to be intezpreted to mean as the candidate for election to a particular seat or from a particular ward and does not definitely mean as a contesting candidate from any other ward. In the election petition before the trial Court, the elections of returned candidate from a particular ward is called in question and therefore "any other candidate" as described in sub-section (4)(c) of section 21 of the Municipalities Act shall have to mean necessarily a candidate at the election which is called in question by presenting petition to the District Court. This interpretation being put to the term "any other candidate" appearing in sub-section (4 )( c) of section 21 is also in consonance with the provisions made in sub-section (12) of section 21 of the Act. Sub-section (12) provides that if the Judge records finding at the conclusion of the trial thereby declaring the names of persons including any candidate, if any, to be guilty of corrupt practice, the Judge is invested with the powers to pass an order declaring such other person disqualified from becoming a Councillor or member of any other local authority for a period not exceeding six years but not less than two years. In this view of the matter, any person who is not impleaded in the array of respondents can also be penalised if it is found that such a person is guilty of any corrupt practice. In this view of the matter, any person who is not impleaded in the array of respondents can also be penalised if it is found that such a person is guilty of any corrupt practice. The scope of "necessary parties" within contemplation of section 21 of the Act cannot be enhanced to include a candidate at election from different ward, which election is nay subjected to challenge in the petition before the Court. The term "any other candidate" contained in sub-section (4 )( c) of section 21 of the Act has a reference to a candidate at the other election which is not subjected to challenge in the election petition. In similar circumstances, while dealing with the identical issue in the matter of Smt. Kanta Kathuria vs. Manak Chand Surana, reported in 1969(3) SCC 268 while putting intezpretation to term candidate appearing in clause (b) of section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Apex Court has ruled that the candidate necessarily shall be at the same election and not the persons who are candidates at other elections. 11. Therefore, in the instant matter, the petitioners who are not the candidates at the election which is subject-matter of challenge in an election petition before the District Court, cannot be considered to be necessary or proper parties to the petition. Order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application tendered by the petitioners for striking off their names from the petition is required to be quashed and set aside. The petitions are thus allowed. Order passed by the District Judge - 2, Jalgaon on 18-6-2007 rejecting the applications tendered by petitioners stands quashed and set aside. The names of the petitioners be struck off from the election petitions presented by the respondents before the District Court. Rule is accordingly made absolute. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 12. It is urged by learned counsel Shri Dhorde for respondents that election petitions are presented to the District Court in the year 2006 and even after completion of about two and half years, those remain pending. The term of the elected body is for five years. In such circumstances, it is desirable that the District Court shall decide the petitions expeditiously. The term of the elected body is for five years. In such circumstances, it is desirable that the District Court shall decide the petitions expeditiously. The learned Judge dealing with the election petitions shall make an endeavour to dispose of the petitions expeditiously and shall decide the same by the end of August, 2009. 13. Pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. Petitions allowed.