Judgment :- P.C Heard on the following preliminary objection. “(1) Whether the Election Petition is liable to be dismissed for non compliance of provisions of Sections 82 and 86 of the Representation of the people Act, 1951.” 2. The Petitioner has invoked the provisions of Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short “the Act”), basically against Respondent No.6, the Returning Candidate, to the Legislative Council of Maharashtra State in the Nashik Local Authorities Constituency in the Biennial Election for the year 2012. Apart from prayer to quash and set aside the Election, also prayed for declaration that the Petitioner be declared as elected candidate. There are other various connected and related prayers made including for interim reliefs, by filing the Election Petition on 19 June 2012. 3. On 23 July 2012, the Court while admitting the matter, issued notice of final disposal and made returnable on 3 September 2012. On 31 August 2012, Application No. 5 of 2012 was filed by Respondent No.6 (Jaywantrao) and prayed for dismissal of the Election Petition under Section 82 and 86 of the Act for non-compliance. Another Application No. 6 of 2012 filed on 17 September 2012 by the Petitioner (Shivaji Laxman Sahane) and prayed for amendment to the Election Petition to the extent of correcting the typographical error. This Court, after hearing both the parties, and considering the provisions of the Act, dismissed Application No. 5 of 2012 filed by Respondent No.6 and allowed Application No. 6 of 2012 to carry out amendment by order dated 30 November 2012. The Respondent's Special Leave Petition against this order was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 8 January 2013. 4. Application No. 7 of 2012 filed on 16 October 2012 on behalf of original Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and prayed as under:- (a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that Election Commission of India, Applicant No.1, the Chief Electoral Officer, Applicant No.2, the Returning Officer, Applicant No.3, Mr. P. Velarasu, IAS, who acted as Returning Officer, Applicant No.4 and the Assistant Returning Officer, Applicant No.5 herein, cannot be made parties to the Election Petition. (b) That this Hon'ble court be pleased to delete the names of Election Commission of India, Applicant No.1, the Chief Electoral Officer, Applicant No.2, the Returning Officer, Applicant No.3, Mr. P. Velarasu, IAS, who acted as Returning Officer, Applicant No.4 and the Assistant Returning Officer, Applicant No.5 herein, cannot be made parties to the Election Petition. (b) That this Hon'ble court be pleased to delete the names of Election Commission of India, Applicant No.1, the Chief Electoral Officer, Applicant No.2, the Returning Officer, Applicant No.3, Mr. P. Velarasu, IAS, who acted as Returning Officer, Applicant No.4 and the Assistant Returning Officer, Applicant No.5 herein, from the Election Petition No. 1 of 2012.” Though by affidavit-in-reply, the Petitioner has opposed the Application initially but ultimately conceded the position and submitted to the said Application and also prayed to delete those Respondents. 5. On 14 December 2012, issued summons to the Respondents pursuant to Rules 9 and 10 (Appendix-II) (Election Petition) of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, returnable on 1 February 2013. On 1 February 2013, Respondent No. 6 sought time to file written statement. The time was accordingly granted. The time was also sought to file reply to Application No. 7 of 2012. As written statements were filed, the matter was listed for framing issues and accordingly, issues were framed including the above issue, on 21 June 2013. 6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 6 read and referred paragraph Nos. 1 and XVII, XVIII, XIX and 26 of the Election Petition, wherein averments/reasons are made for joining Respondent Nos. 1 to 5, and by referring to the provisions of the Act, submitted to dismiss the Election Petition at this stage itself. 7. Sections 82, 86 of the Act read as under:- “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.” “86. Trial of election petitions.- (1) the High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of section 81 or section 82 or section 117. Trial of election petitions.- (1) the High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of section 81 or section 82 or section 117. Explanation.-An order of the High Court dismissing an election petition under this sub-section shall be deemed to be an order made under clause (a) of Section 98. 8. The reliance has been placed on various judgments/authorities to explain the scheme, purpose and object of the provisions of the Act and its mandate. Those are as under:- (A) T.A. Ahammed Kabeer Vs.A.A. Azeez & Ors. ( AIR 2003 SC 2271 ) - Scope of enquiry under Section 100 (1) - (a) Finding out any votes improperly cast in favour of returned candidates. (b) Any votes improperly refused or rejected in regard to returned candidate. (B) Patangrao Kadam Vs. Prithviraaj Sayajirao Yadav Deshmukh ( AIR 2001 SC 1121 ) - Person after withdrawal is still candidate ought to be impleaded..... Not joining candidate petition liable to be dismissed. (C) Comrade Kallappa Laxman Malabade Vs. Prakash Kallappa Awade ( AIR 1996 Bom. 5 ) - Section 82 and Section 85 Court bound to dismis Petition for non-joinder of parties. (D) Mohan Raj Vs. Surendra Kumar Taparia (AIR 1968 Raj. 28) - Court bound to dismiss petition under Section 86(1) whenever brought to notice non-compliance of Sections 81, 82 or 117. (E) Michael B. Fernandes Vs. C.K. Jaffar Sharief & Ors. ( AIR 2002 SC 1041 ) - If persons other than permitted joined then that would be a unending disorderly election dispute. (F) B. Sundra Rami Reddy Vs. Election Commission of India & Ors. (1991 Supp. (2) SCC 624) - Election Commissioner not to be joinded as party Section-82 governs. (G) K. Kamaraja Nadar Vs. Kunju Thevar & Ors. ( AIR 1958 SC 687 ) - All contesting candidates to be joined. (H) Inamati Mallappa Basappa vs. Desai Basavraj Ayyappa ( AIR 1958 SC 698 ) - Election contest is properly a statutory proceeding. (I) Jaganath Rahane Vs. Manisha Nimkar (1996(5) Bom. C.R. 451) - Preliminary issue of maintainability can be considered at any stage. 9. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner has opposed the preliminary objections so raised but conceded that Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 be deleted as they are not seeking specific reliefs against them. (I) Jaganath Rahane Vs. Manisha Nimkar (1996(5) Bom. C.R. 451) - Preliminary issue of maintainability can be considered at any stage. 9. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner has opposed the preliminary objections so raised but conceded that Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 be deleted as they are not seeking specific reliefs against them. The adverse averments even if made against Respondent No.4 in his individual capacity, and the averments against other Respondent Nos. 1 to 5, they are not pressing it. It is also made clear that, if necessary, the concerned officers/ officials, will be called as witnesses. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner also opposed that joining of such excess and/or additional parties other than “contesting candidates”, itself is sufficient to dismiss the Election Petition. 10. The reliance has been placed on Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar Vs. Roop singh Rathore and Ors. ( AIR 1964 SC 1545 ) (Constitutional Bench Judgment) (5 Judges) and also on B.S. Yadiyurappa Vs. Mahalingappa and Ors. ( AIR 2001 SC 4041 ) , whereby it is declared after taking note of Sections 82 and 86 of the Act that the person who was not “contesting candidate” and/or “other than contesting candidate” though impleaded to the Election Petition, does not amount to breach of provisions of the Act. The Petition cannot be dismissed on that ground. The Petitioner can amend the Petition by striking them out from the array. The declaration is clear that unnecessary party even if joined, there is no non-compliance of Section 82 of the Act. 11. The relevant observations in Murarka (Supra) are as under:- “All the parties whom it was necessary to join under the provisions of S.82 were joined as respondents to the petition; but Ballu or Balji was joined in excess of the requirements of S. 82. The question before us is, does this amount to non-compliance with, or contravention of, the provisions of S.82? Learned counsel for the appellant wishes us to read S. 82 as though it said that the persons named therein and no others shall be joined as respondents to the petition. He wants us to add the words "and no others" in the section. We find no warrant for such a reading of S. 82. Learned counsel for the appellant wishes us to read S. 82 as though it said that the persons named therein and no others shall be joined as respondents to the petition. He wants us to add the words "and no others" in the section. We find no warrant for such a reading of S. 82. We agree with the High Court that if all the necessary parties have been joined to the election petition, the circumstance that a person who is not a necessary party has also been impleaded does not amount to a breach of the provisions of S. 82 and no question of dismissing the petition under subs. (3) of S. 90 arises. It is open to the Election Tribunal to strike out the name of the party who is not a necessary party within the meaning of S. 82 of the Act. The position will be different if a person who is required to be joined as a necessary party under S. 82 is not impleaded as a party to the petition. That however is not the case here and we are of the view that the learned counsel for the appellant has failed to make out the very foundation on which his argument on this part of the case is based.” 12. In B.S. Yadiyurappa (Supra), it is observed that:- “3. The Court found no warrant for such a reading of Section 82. It held that if all the necessary parties had been joined to the election petition, the circumstance that a person who was not a necessary party had also been impleaded did not amount to a breach of provisions of Section 82 and no question of dismissing the election petition arose. It was open to the Tribunal (or, here, the Court) to strike out, the name of the party who was not a necessary party within the meaning of Section 82. The position, it was noted, would be different if a person who was required to be joined as a necessary party under Section 82 was not impleaded as a party to the petition.” “6. In Mohan Raj v. Surendra Kumar Taparia ) (1969) 1 SCR 630 the same position was reiterated. The position, it was noted, would be different if a person who was required to be joined as a necessary party under Section 82 was not impleaded as a party to the petition.” “6. In Mohan Raj v. Surendra Kumar Taparia ) (1969) 1 SCR 630 the same position was reiterated. It was held that in an election petition the court can strike out a party who is not necessary but, by reasons of the provisions of the said Act, the power of impleadment cannot be used if a necessary party has not been joined.” “8. It is, therefore, clear, on the authorities of this Court, that those who are mentioned in Section 82 of the said Act must be made parties to an election petition and, if they are not, the election petition is one which does not comply with the provisions of Section 82 and must, therefore, be dismissed by reason of the term of Section 86(1). It does not, however, follow that if to an election petition parties other than those who are necessary parties under Section 82 have been impleaded, the election partition is one that does not comply with the provisions of Section 82 and must be dismissed. Such a petition can be amended by striking out from the array of parties those additionally impleaded. 13. The Constitutional Bench Judgment Murarka (Supra) binds all-which is further followed in B.S. Yadiyurappa (Supra) also. The conclusions as crystalized in these Judgments, in my view, clinches and concludes the issue in favour of deleting the names of Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 from the array of the parties by allowing the Application filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 themselves. There is no reason to postpone the hearing on the said Application and as there is specific submission made, as recorded, by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, on instructions, that they are not pressing any relief against Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Their names required to be deleted. Respondent No. 6, “the contesting candidate”/“the returning candidate”, being the necessary party is the mandate. The facts and circumstances so cited by the learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent No.6 are different and distinguishable. The cases so cited in fact, support the proposition to proceed with the Election Petition as necessary party is already on record. The objection is too technical. Respondent Nos. The facts and circumstances so cited by the learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent No.6 are different and distinguishable. The cases so cited in fact, support the proposition to proceed with the Election Petition as necessary party is already on record. The objection is too technical. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5, themselves also want this Court to delete their names. Respondent No. 6 can not object to it. The presence of “returning candidate” is only requirement for effective and complete adjudication upon and to settle all points involved in the Election Petition. All others are not necessary party. The Court even otherwise, can delete such unnecessary parties to expedite the matter. In Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar (Supra) as Application for deleting the extra/excess Respondent from the array of parties, was allowed and therefore, the challenge was raised, but rejected in the Appeal before the Supreme Court. The observations with regard to the provisions of the Act need no further discussion. 14. Even otherwise, considering the clear observations made in Murarka (Supra) and followed further in B.S. Yadiyurappa (Supra) and as in Michael B. Fernandes (Supra) , the Constitutional Bench Judgment Murarka (Supra) was nor referred and as in the present case Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 themselves prayed for deletion of their names and considering the scope and purpose as well as mandate of the provisions, they are not necessary parties and as Respondent No.6, a necessary party, as contemplated under the Act is made party and considering the fact that the Petitioner is not pressing and or seeking any relief against those Respondents and reserve the right to call the officers/officials if necessary as witnesses, to support their case, I am also of the view that no case is made out by Respondent No. 6 to dismiss the Election Petition as objected for joining of excess/unnecessary party other than “the returning candidate” and/or “contesting candidate”. 15. The issue of joining excess and/or unnecessary party, is nowhere dealt with and/or referred in any of the provisions of the Act. Once the mandate is complied with by joining the necessary party, the objection that additional and excess party would in breach of the mandate of any of the provisions so referred, is unacceptable. Such objection is not sufficient to dismiss the Election Petition at this stage itself. The defects, even if any, in my view is curable. 16. Once the mandate is complied with by joining the necessary party, the objection that additional and excess party would in breach of the mandate of any of the provisions so referred, is unacceptable. Such objection is not sufficient to dismiss the Election Petition at this stage itself. The defects, even if any, in my view is curable. 16. All the judgments cited by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the parties shows that the Supreme Court in all such matters either maintain the order of deletion of such excess party and/or permit the Petitioner to delete other parties. In view of above reasons, I am inclined to accept the submission made by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner to reject the objection so raised. The preliminary objections so raised, in view of above, are therefore, rejected, as there is no non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 82 and 86 of the Act. 17. Resultantly, the following order: ORDER a) Application No. 7 of 2012 filed in Election Petition No. 1 of 2012 is allowed. b) The Petitioner to carry out the amendment within one week. c) The preliminary objection is rejected. d) The issue is answered in negative. e) There shall be no order as to costs. f) Election Petition be placed on board on 16 August 2013, for further hearing.