JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Naqvi, J.—Heard Sri Raj Karan Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. Respondent No. 2-Sadhana Bharatiya, questioned the election of petitioner-Rajendra Prasad as Pradhan under Section 12-C of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (for short the “Act”) before the Election Tribunal. A plea of non-joinder of Rakesh Kumar was raised by Rajendra Prasad-respondent No. 1 in the election petition on the ground that although Rakesh Kumar filed his nomination yet he was not impleaded as respondent in the election petition. The said plea was rejected by the Tribunal on 26.10.2013, which is impugned in the petition. 2. Sri Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the strength of the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Patangrao Kadam v. Prithviraj Sayajirao Yadav Deshmuk, 2001(3) SCC 594 and of this Court in the case of Ramanand Gaur v. Ram Sanehi and others, 2012 (115) RD 794, submitted that on the facts of the present case, the Tribunal ought to have directed the election petitioner to implead Rakesh Kumar as one of the respondents. 3. Rule 3(2) of the U.P. Panchayat (Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994 reads as under: “The person whose election is questioned and where the petition claims that the petitioner or any other candidate shall be declared elected in place of such person, every unsuccessful candidate shall be made a respondent to the application.” 4. A perusal of Rule 3(2) of 1994 Rules, would manifest that it contemplates impleadment of two types of candidates. First of a person, whose election is questioned and secondly, where the relief sought is that election petitioner or any other candidate be declared as elected, every unsuccessful candidate is to be made a respondent in the election petition. 5. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the Court finds that Rakesh Kumar withdrew his nomination, before the last date and was not allotted any election symbol. Thus, in the considered opinion of the Court, such a person cannot be said to be an unsuccessful candidate so as to be compulsorily impleaded as a respondent in the election petition. 6. The Court has perused paragraph 11 of the judgment in the case of Patangrao Kadam (supra) and finds that the observations of the Apex Court, were in reference to the provisions of The Representation of People’s Act, 1951. 7. 6. The Court has perused paragraph 11 of the judgment in the case of Patangrao Kadam (supra) and finds that the observations of the Apex Court, were in reference to the provisions of The Representation of People’s Act, 1951. 7. Section 79(b) of the 1951 Act provides that “candidate” means a person who has been or claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate at any election. 8. Section 82 of 1951 Act reads as under: 82(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. 9. On the aforesaid facts and after analyzing the definition of the term “candidate” and provisions of Section 82 of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951, the Apex Court was of the view that Section 82 of the 1951 Act speaks of three categories of candidates, (1) the contesting candidates, (2) the returned candidate and, (3) any other candidate. 10. In Kadam’s (supra) case, Sampat Rao Chavan withdrew his nomination on the last date. Thereafter, he became an agent of the returned candidate, where election was sought to be questioned on the allegations of corrupt practice against Sampat Rao Chavan. Sampat Rao Chavan was held to be covered by Section 82 (b)r/w Section 79(b). Thus, his non-impleadment was held to be fatal to the election petition. 11. The observations of the Apex Court would not be applicable on the facts of the present case, primarily for the reason that in the cited case, allegations of corrupt practice had been levelled against Sampat Rao Chavan. Thus, his impleadment was a must as a respondent in the election petition under Section 82(b) of the 1951 Act. 12. The Court has also perused the judgment in the case of Ramanand Gaur (supra) and finds that the same would have no application to the facts of the present case, as in the cited case, three unsuccessful candidates, were not impleaded in the election petition. 12. The Court has also perused the judgment in the case of Ramanand Gaur (supra) and finds that the same would have no application to the facts of the present case, as in the cited case, three unsuccessful candidates, were not impleaded in the election petition. As stated above, in the given case, the candidate withdrew his nomination before the last cut off date and was also not allotted any election symbol. Thus, the said candidate cannot be said to be an unsuccessful candidate, as it is always open on second thoughts for a candidate to withdraw his nomination on or before the last date of withdrawal of nomination. 13. No other plea is pressed. 14. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.