JUDGMENT 1. The present miscellaneous application has been filed by the respondent in the Election Petition No. 1 of 2012, Sri Mairembam Prithviraj, seeking impleadment of the Returning Officer of 27 Moirang Assembly Constituency, 27-Moirang, Bishnupur District, Manipur, as respondent No. 2 in the election petition, contending that he is a necessary party, which has been objected to by the election petitioner, Sri Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh. 2. The election petition was filed by Shri Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh, who had contested as a candidate of “Nationalist Congress Party” against the present applicant in the 27 Moirang Assembly Constituency in the 10th Manipur Legislative Assembly Election held on 28.01.2012 in which the present applicant (respondent in the election petition) representing the “Indian National Congress” was declared elected. For the said 10th General Election of Manipur Legislative Assembly, 2012, the last date for submitting nomination papers was on 11.01.2012. Scrutiny of nomination papers was held on 12.01.2012 and last date of withdrawal of candidates was fixed on 14.01.2012. The election was held on 28.1.2012. 3. According to the election petitioner, at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers on 12.01.2012, the election petitioner objected to the nomination paper of the respondent (applicant herein) under Section 36(2) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 on the ground that (i) the respondent failed to file proper affidavit as prescribed under Article 173 of the Constitution of India and that the affidavit filed was a false one inasmuch as the respondent falsely deposed in para-9 of the affidavit that his highest educational qualification is MBA obtained from Mysore University in 2004, which was untrue, (ii) that the respondent submitted false information by putting the word “nil” in his affidavit in respect of residential building and also concealed particulars of his homestead land and structure (non agricultural land) at Moirang, where he is presently residing; and (iii) that the affidavit filed by respondent was not made, by subscribing the oath or affirmation before the Returning Officer or any competent authority as prescribed by the Election Commission of India. The election petitioner, accordingly, raised objections to the nomination papers filed by the respondent and requested the Returning Officer, 27-Moirang Assembly Constituency (A/C) requesting for rejecting the nomination paper of the respondent for making false declaration, whereupon, the Returning Officer directed the respondent to furnish documents in support of his claim that he had passed MBA in 2004 from Mysore University and also relating to residential building at Moirang, to be submitted by 13.01.2012. 4. According to the election petitioner, the respondent failed to file the relevant documents on 13.1.2012. However, the Returning Officer without taking a decision on the objection raised by the election petitioner, accepted the defective and invalid nomination paper filed by the respondent. As per the election petitioner, the nomination of the respondent is liable to be rejected under Section 36(2)(a) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and the Returning Officer ought to have declared the petitioner as the elected candidate as there was no other valid candidature. 5. Accordingly, after the declaration of the respondent as the elected candidate from 27-Moirang Assembly Constituency, the election petitioner filed the Election Petition No. 1 of 2012 challenging the election of the respondent on various grounds. The election petitioner has raised certain allegations regarding the conduct of the Returning Officer and narrated the same in para Nos. 4.9, 4.13, 4.14, 4.15, 4.19 and 4.20 of the election petition. The gist of the allegations made in the said paragraphs in the election petition is that the Returning Officer had wrongly accepted the nomination of the respondent without deciding the objections raised by the petitioner about the false affidavit filed by the respondent. 6. It is in this context that the respondent in the election petition, who was the elected candidate filed the present Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2013 in the Election Petition No. 1 of 2012 for impleading the said Returning Officer of 27-Moirang Assembly Constituency as respondent No. 2 contending that since various allegations had been made against the Returning Officer, the Returning Officer is a necessary party. It has been contended by the applicant that in view of the various allegations raised against the Returning Officer, he has to answer these allegations and in absence of proper explanation furnished by the Returning Officer, the present Election Petition No. 1 of 2012 cannot be properly adjudicated. 7. It has been contended by the applicant that in view of the various allegations raised against the Returning Officer, he has to answer these allegations and in absence of proper explanation furnished by the Returning Officer, the present Election Petition No. 1 of 2012 cannot be properly adjudicated. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant (respondent in the election petition) submitted that Section 87 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 provides that subject to provisions of this Act and of any rules made thereunder, every election petition shall be tried by the High Court, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to the trial of suits. Therefore, since the Returning Officer is a necessary party against whom serious allegations had been labelled who needs to answer these for proper adjudication of the election trial, he could be impleaded as Respondent as provided under Rule 10(2) of Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. 8. The election petitioner (respondent in the present misc. application) has objected to the prayer of the applicant contending that the Returning Officer is not a necessary party in the election petition and, accordingly, need not be impleaded as a respondent in the election petition. It has been submitted that the concept of necessary or proper party as envisaged under the Code of Civil Procedure, is not contemplated in an election trial under the Representation of People Act, 1951, as only those parties/persons which are mentioned in Sections 82 and 86(4) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 can be joined as respondents in an election petition and no one else. It has been also submitted that the issue whether the Returning Officer can be impleaded as a respondent in an election petition had been already settled by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions for which he has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Jyoti Basu & Ors v. Debi Ghosal & Ors. (1982) 1 SCC 691 : ( AIR 1982 SC 983 ); B.Sundara Rami Reddy v. Election Commission of India & Ors. (1991) Supp (2) SCC 624 : (1991 AIR SCW 772); Michael B. Fernandes v. C. K. Jaffer Sharief & Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 521 : ( AIR 2002 SC 1041 ). 9. (1982) 1 SCC 691 : ( AIR 1982 SC 983 ); B.Sundara Rami Reddy v. Election Commission of India & Ors. (1991) Supp (2) SCC 624 : (1991 AIR SCW 772); Michael B. Fernandes v. C. K. Jaffer Sharief & Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 521 : ( AIR 2002 SC 1041 ). 9. In response, the applicant (respondent in the election petition) has also submitted a number of decisions of the Supreme Court wherein the Returning Officer has been impleaded as respondent and submitted that no such election petitions were not objected to or dismissed on the ground of impleadment of Returning Officer and in that context has relied the decisions of the Supreme Court Baburao v. Manikrao & Anr. (1999) 5 SCC 38 : ( AIR 1999 SC 2028 ); P.K.K. Shamsudeen v. K.A.M. Mappillai Mohindeen & Ors., (1989) 1 SCC 526 : ( AIR 1989 SC 640 ); Mithilesh Kumar Sinha v. Returning Officer for Presidential Election and Ors. 1993 Supp (4) SCC 386 : ( AIR 1993 SC 20 ); Devendra Patel v. Ram Pal Singh & Ors., AIR 2014 SC 404 and Makhan Lal Bangal v. Manas Bhunia & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 490 . 10. Therefore, the issue raised and to be decided in the present miscellaneous application is whether the Returning Officer is a necessary party or not in an election petition filed under the Representation of People Act, 1951 and if so, whether the Returning Officer of 27-Moirang Assembly Constituency needs to be impleaded as a respondent No. 2 in the Election Petition No. 1 of 2012 as sought by the applicant (respondent in the election petition). To understand this issue, we may refer to the relevant provisions of Representation of People Act, 1951 and the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Section 87 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 provides as follows: “87. To understand this issue, we may refer to the relevant provisions of Representation of People Act, 1951 and the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Section 87 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 provides as follows: “87. Procedure before the High Court:-- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any rules made thereunder, every election petition shall be tried by the High Court, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) to the trial of suits : Provided that the High Court shall have the discretion to refuse, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to examine any witness or witnesses if it is of the opinion that the evidence of such witness or witnesses is not material for the decision of petition or that the party tendering such witness or witnesses is doing so on frivolous grounds or with a view to delay the proceedings. (2) The provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be deemed to apply in all respects to the trial of an election petition.)” According to Section 87 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall be applicable and every election petition shall be tried, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Therefore, the provisions of CPC will not be strictly and wholly applicable in election trials but will be applicable as nearly as may be possible. Further, this section is also qualified by the words “Subject to the provisions of this Act and any rules made thereunder” thereby meaning that if there are other provisions under the Representation of People Act, 1951 and the rules made thereunder which are contrary or repugnant to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to that extent such provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure will not be applicable and the provisions under the Representation of People Act, 1951 and Rules framed thereunder shall prevail. In normal circumstances, the provision of Order-I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 will be applicable in election trial also unless there are other provisions under the Representation of People Act, 1951, providing to the contrary. In normal circumstances, the provision of Order-I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 will be applicable in election trial also unless there are other provisions under the Representation of People Act, 1951, providing to the contrary. Therefore, it will be necessary to examine if there are provisions in the Representation of People Act, 1951 which deal with array of parties. In this regard, we may refer to Sections 82 and 86(4) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, which deal with the same, which are reproduced hereinbelow for better appreciation. “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) ...... (2) ...... (3) ...... (4) Any candidate not already a respondent shall, upon application made by him to the High Court within fourteen days from the date of commencement of the trial and subject to any order as to security for costs which may be made by the High Court, be entitled to be joined as a respondent.” Thus, under Section 82 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, a petitioner shall join as respondents all the contesting candidates, where the petitioner in addition to claiming declaration that election of all or any of the returned candidates is void and claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, and implead all the returned candidates other than the petitioner as respondents where no such further declaration is claimed. Section 82 further provides that any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition shall be joined as respondent. Therefore, reading of Section 82 would show that the Representation of People Act, 1951 contemplates joining of respondent of only contesting candidates or returned candidate as the case may be, and it does not provide for impleadment of any other person or authority. Therefore, reading of Section 82 would show that the Representation of People Act, 1951 contemplates joining of respondent of only contesting candidates or returned candidate as the case may be, and it does not provide for impleadment of any other person or authority. Section 86(4) provides that any candidate not already a respondent shall, upon application made by him to the High Court within fourteen days of commencement of the trial for impleadment. It may be noted that this section refers to a candidate only and no other person. 11. Therefore, in view of the above provisions of Sections 82 and 86(4) which do not provide for impleading of any other person as a respondent other than the contesting candidates or the returned candidate as the case may be, it will not be permissible to import the provisions of Order-I, Rule 10 (2) of the CPC on the plea that a person is a necessary party. As already discussed above, as per Section 87 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable subject to the provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and rules framed thereunder. In the present case, we have observed that as there are specific provisions relating to impleadment of parties under the Representation of People Act, 1951 and the scope of such provisions cannot be enlarged by importing the principle or the procedure provided under the Code of Civil Procedure. This aspect had been discussed and considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Jyoti Basu ( AIR 1982 SC 983 ) (supra) and B. Sundara Rami Reddy (1991 AIR SCW 772 (supra). In the case of Jyoti Basu (supra), in an election petition filed by a candidate belonging to Indian National Congress against an elected candidate sponsored by the Communist Party of India, before the High Court of Calcutta, not only the returned candidate and the unsuccessful candidates were impleaded as respondents but several others including the District Magistrate, the Returning Officer, the Chief Minister of the State and several other Ministries were also impleaded as Respondents. In the said election petition, it was alleged that the Chief Minister and other Ministers and the officers had colluded and conspired with the returned candidate to commit various corrupt practices. In the said election petition, it was alleged that the Chief Minister and other Ministers and the officers had colluded and conspired with the returned candidate to commit various corrupt practices. The Chief Minister and two ministers filed application before the Calcutta High Court to strike out their names from the array of parties in the election petition on the ground that the election petitioner was not entitled to implead them as parties claiming that they were not candidates in the election. The Calcutta High Court rejected their plea, against which, they preferred an SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case elaborately discussed the provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951 in the context of Article 329 of the Constitution of India which provides under clause (b) that no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature. Since the Representation of People Act, 1951 has made specific provisions to deal with disputes regarding elections and procedures thereof, the election disputes are to be dealt with on the basis of the provisions made therein. The Hon’ble Supreme Court referring to Section 80 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 observed that it imposed a statutory ban on an election being called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provision of Part VI of the said Act. Therefore, any such election petition has to be considered and adjudicated by the Courts in the manner laid down in Part VI of the Act. Section 81 of the Act prescribes who may present an election petition and section 82 specifically deals with “Parties to the petition”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after discussing the provisions of Section 82 as quoted above, took the view that the concept of necessary party or proper is alien in an election dispute under the Representation of People Act, 1951 and only those who are mentioned in Sections 82 and 86(4) may join as respondents in an election petition and no one else, however, desirable and expedient it may appear to be. The Hon’ble Supreme Court accordingly held in Jyoti Basu (supra) as follows: “(13) In view of the foregoing discussion we are of the opinion that no one may be joined as a party to an election petition otherwise than as provided by Ss. 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 appeal is therefore, allowed with costs and the names of the appellants and the 7th respondent in the appeal are directed to be struck out from the array of parties in the election petition. We may mention that in arriving at our conclusion we have also considered the following decisions cited before us: S.B. Adityan v. S. Kandaswami ( AIR 1958 Mad 171 ) : (ILR 1958 Mad 279); Dwijendra Lal Sen Gupta v. Harekrishna Konar ( AIR 1963 Cal 218 ) : (66 Cal WN 917); H.R. Gokhale v. Bharucha Noshir C. ( AIR 1969 Bom 177 ) : (70 Bom LR 476); and S. Iqbal Singh v. S. Gurdas Singh Badal ( AIR 1973 P&H 163 (FB)) : (ILR (1972) 1).” The said decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jyoti Basu (supra) was followed in the case of B. Sundara Rami Reddy (supra). In the case of B. Sundara Rami Reddy (supra), in an election petition filed under the Representation of People Act, 1951, the Election Commission of India was impleaded as one of the respondents. The Election Commission of India made an application before the High Court for deleting it from the array of the parties on the ground that it was not a necessary party which objection was upheld by the High Court and directed deletion of the Election Commission of India from the array of parties which decision was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In B. Sundara Rami Reddy (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “(4) Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that even if the Election Commission may not be a necessary party, it was a proper party since its orders have been challenged in the election petition. He further urged that since Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is applicable to trial of an election petition the concept of proper party is applicable to the trial of election petition. We find no merit in the contention. He further urged that since Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is applicable to trial of an election petition the concept of proper party is applicable to the trial of election petition. We find no merit in the contention. S. 87 of the Act lays down that subject to the provisions of the Act and any rules made thereunder, every election petition shall be tried by the High court, as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to the trial of suits. Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code have thus been made applicable to the trial of an election petition to a limited extent as would appear from the expression “subject to the provisions of this Act”. Since S. 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 Ss. 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 v. Bekkam Narasimha Reddi, AIR 1969 SC 872 : (1969) 1 SCR 679 , 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-sec. (4) of S. 86 of the Act. (4) of S. 86 of the Act. Again in Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal (1982) 1 SCC 691 : (1982) 3 SCR 318 : ( AIR 1982 SC 983 ), 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 Sections 82 and S. 86(4) and no others. However desirable and expedient it may appear to be, none else shall be joined as respondents.” Similar was the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Michael B. Fernandes, ( AIR 2002 SC 1041 ) (supra) by a three Judge Bench by affirming its earlier decisions in Jyoti Basu’s case (supra) and B. Sundara Rami Reddy (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Michael B. Fernandes (supra) repelled the arguments advanced that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405 : ( AIR 1978 SC 851 ) decided by a larger Bench, had observed that Constitution contemplates a free and fair election and vests comprehensive responsibilities of superintendence, direction and control of the conduct of elections to the Election Commission. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid responsibilities cast on the Election Commission, if there are allegations made against the Returning Officer or the Chief Electoral Officer with regard to the conduct of election, there should not be any bar to array them as parties. It was urged that the earlier judgment of the larger Bench in Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) being not noticed, the decisions of the Jyoti Basu (supra) and the subsequent cases require to be reconsidered. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Michael B. Fernandes (supra) repelled the said argument stating that in Mohinder Singh Gill’s case (supra), the order of Election Commission was under challenge by filing a writ petition and it was not an election petition under the provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and the issue as regards the array of party which relates to an election petition was not an issue before it and as such, Mohinder Singh Gill’s case (supra) could not come in the way of Jyoti Basu (supra) and other cases relating to impleadment of parties. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Michael B. Fernandes (supra) held as follows: “.............................But both these aforesaid decisions of the Calcutta High Court, AIR 1963 Cal 218 : 66 CWN 917 and Bombay High Court, AIR 1969 Bom 177 : 70 Bom LR 466 had been considered by this Court in Jyoti Basu case and 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 views taken by this Court in Jyoti Basu’s case (1982) 1 SCC 691 : ( AIR 1982 SC 983 ) and reaffirmed in the latter case in B. Sundara Rami Reddy 1991 Supp (2) SCC 624 : (1991 AIR SCW 772) and we see no infirmity with the impugned judgment, requiring our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. This appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.” In view of the well settled position of law as regards the impleadment of parties in election petition which is restricted only to the candidates in the election and no one else, there is no scope for arguing that any other person including the Returning Officer, except for the contesting candidate/returned candidate can be made a party. Therefore, the prayer of the applicant in the present Misc. case for impleading the Returning Officer of 27-Moirang Assembly Constituency has no legal basis. Learned counsel for the applicant, however, has made a feeble attempt to justify impleading of the Returning Officer of the 27-Moirang Assembly Constituency by relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baburao v. Manikrao & Anr. (1999) 5 SCC 38 : ( AIR 1999 SC 2028 ); P.K.K. Shamsudeen v. K.A.M. Mappillai Mohindeen & Ors. (1989) 1 SCC 526 : ( AIR 1989 SC 640 ); Mithilesh Kumar Sinha v. Returning Officer for Presidential Election and Ors. (1999) 5 SCC 38 : ( AIR 1999 SC 2028 ); P.K.K. Shamsudeen v. K.A.M. Mappillai Mohindeen & Ors. (1989) 1 SCC 526 : ( AIR 1989 SC 640 ); Mithilesh Kumar Sinha v. Returning Officer for Presidential Election and Ors. 1993 Supp (4) SCC 386 : ( AIR 1993 SC 20 ) contending that in the election petitions so filed, the concerned Returning Officers were impleaded as respondents thereby suggesting that in appropriate case, Returning Officer can be impleaded as respondent. However, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid decisions relied on by the applicant are not applicable. In the case of Baburao (supra), no issue was raised regarding permissibility of impleading the Returning Officer as a respondent. The only issue which was decided was relating to the disqualification of a candidate whose name appeared in the electoral roll of more than one constituency. Similarly, in P.K.K. Shamsudeen’s case (supra), the election petition related to Panchayat Election under Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958 and as such, not relevant to the present case. Mithilesh Kumar Sinha’s case (supra) dealt with an election of a President of India which is governed by a separate set of rules as provided under the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 and as such, the same will not be applicable in the present case. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, this Court holds that the application filed for impleading the Returning Officer of the 27-Moirang Assembly Constituency as a respondent is devoid of merit and stands dismissed. Order accordingly. __________