JUDGMENT Kh. Nobin Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri N. Mahendra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/respondent and Shri N. Ibotombi, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri S. Samarjit, learned Advocate appearing for the applicants/respondents. 2. Both the Misc. Cases being M.C. (E.P.) No. 2 of 2012 and M.C (E.P)) No. 3 of 2012 arises out of the same set of facts and hence, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 3. Both the Misc. Cases have been filed by the applicants namely, the Election Commission of India and the Chief Electoral Officer, Manipur praying for deletion of their names from the array of parties in the election petition being E.P. No. 2 of 2012 which has been filed by the petitioner praying for declaring the election of the returned candidate namely Shri R.K. Anand from 21 - Naoria Pakhanglakpa Assembly Constituency in the 10th Manipur State Assembly Election, 2012 as null and void. In the said Election Petition, the Election Commission of India and the Chief Election Officer, Manipur have been arrayed as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. M.C (E.P) No. 2 of 2012: 4. This application has been filed by the Election Commission of India for deleting its name from the array of parties in the said Election Petition on the ground that the applicant is neither a necessary party nor is a proper party relying upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jyoti Basu & ors. Vs. Debi Ghosal & ors. reported in (1982) 1 SCC 691 ; B. Sundra Rami Reddy Vs. Election Commission of India reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 624 and Michael Fernandes Vs. C.K. Jaffar Sharif & ors. reported in AIR 2002 SC 1041 . M.C (E.P) No. 3 of 2012: 5. This application has been filed by the Chief Electoral Officer, Manipur for deleting its name from the array of parties in the said Election Petition on the similar ground that the applicant is neither a necessary party nor is a proper party relying upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases as stated in the preceding paragraph. 6. It is submitted by Shri N. Ibotombi, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the Applicants that the respondent Nos. 6. It is submitted by Shri N. Ibotombi, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the Applicants that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are not necessary parties at all in terms of section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which stipulates strictly as to who shall be joined as respondents in an election petition. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already laid down the law that right to elect or to be elected or dispute regarding election are neither fundamental rights nor are they common law rights but are confined to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act and rules made there under; that the rights and remedies are all limited to those provided by the statutory provisions and that the contest of the election petition is designed to be confined to the candidates at the election and all others are excluded. On the other hand, Shri N. Mahendra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1/election petitioner has submitted that the applicants have been arrayed as party respondent Nos. 2 & 3 keeping in view the provisions of Section 82 and 99 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; that provisions of Section82 do not put an embargo on the election petitioner for addition of any other person(s) as necessary party depending upon the nature of the allegation made in the election petition and that the provisions of Section 82 do not restrict as to the persons who can be joined as respondents in the election petition. It has also been submitted that the allegations made in various paragraphs of the election petition are required to be responded by the applicants and therefore, both the applicants are necessary parties in the election petition. To substantiate his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the election petitioner has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Md. Hanif Quareshi & others Vs. State of Bihar & ors. reported in AIR 1958 SC 731 and by the Hon'ble J & K High Court in the case of Shyam Saraf Vs. Md. Shafi Quareshi reported in AIR 1968 J & K 18. 7. Hanif Quareshi & others Vs. State of Bihar & ors. reported in AIR 1958 SC 731 and by the Hon'ble J & K High Court in the case of Shyam Saraf Vs. Md. Shafi Quareshi reported in AIR 1968 J & K 18. 7. The issue that arises for consideration by this court is as to whether the applicants namely the Election Commission of India and the Chief Electoral Officer, Manipur are necessary parties in the instant election petition or not? 8. The term 'election' is defined in Section 2(d) of the Representation of People Act and it means an election to fill a seat or seats in either house of Parliament or in the house or either house of the legislature of a State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Section 80 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 provides that no election can be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of part - VI. Section 81 provides that an election petition can be presented by any candidate at such election or any elector. Section 100 provides for the grounds on which an election may be called in question. Section 82 provides for the parties to be made in the election petition which includes besides the returned candidate, all other candidates against whom corrupt practice is alleged. Section 86(1) enjoins the High Court to dismiss an election petition which does not comply the provisions of Section 81, 82 and 117. Section 86 is mandatory and the High Court is bound to dismiss such a petition. The relevant provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 are reproduced herein below: "82. Parties to the petition. - A petitioner shall join as respondents to this 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(4) Any candidate not already a respondent shall, upon application made by him to the Court within fourteen days from the 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 respondents." 9. It is vehemently submitted by Shri N. Ibotombi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Applicants that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are not necessary parties in the present election petition in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. The first decision that he has relied upon is that of the case of Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal, (supra) wherein besides the candidates at the election including the returned candidate, several others were impleaded as respondents in the election petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter-alia held that no one may be joined as a party to an election petition otherwise than as provided by Section 82 and 86(4) of the Act and directed that the names of the appellants and the respondent No. 7 be struck out from the array of parties in the election petition. Reliance also has been placed in the decision rendered in the case of B. Sundara Rami Reddy case (supra) wherein the unsuccessful candidate filed an election petition challenging the validity of the order of the Election Commission declaring the polling at a polling station as void and directing re-poll at that polling station and impleaded the Election Commission of India as one of the respondents to the election petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter-alia held that the Election Commission of India is not a necessary party to an election petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that no other person or authority except as specified in Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, is required to be impleaded as a respondent to an election petition under the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that no other person or authority except as specified in Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, is required to be impleaded as a respondent to an election petition under the Act. Further reliance has been placed in the case of Michael B. Fernandes case (supra) wherein the appellant filed an election petition challenging the validity of the election in which the respondent No1 was elected and the Election Commission of India, the Returning Officer and the Chief Electoral Officer had been arrayed as respondents, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had reiterated the views taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jyoti Basus's case and reaffirmed in the later case in B. Sundara Rami Reddy. On the other hand, Shri N. Mahendra, learned counsel appearing for the election petitioner has submitted that in view of the allegations made in the election petition which are required to be responded to by the Election Commission of India and moreover, in the affidavit filed on behalf of the returned candidate, it is also stated that it is for the Election Commission of India to meet those allegations, the Election Commission is a necessary party. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Md. Hanif Quareshi & ors. Vs. State of Bihar & ors. reported AIR 1958 SC 731 wherein the validity of several enactments banning the slaughter of certain animals was questioned in writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that on an important point of law somebody else, other than the parties to any proceedings before it, can be permitted to be heard. reported AIR 1958 SC 731 wherein the validity of several enactments banning the slaughter of certain animals was questioned in writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that on an important point of law somebody else, other than the parties to any proceedings before it, can be permitted to be heard. He has further placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble J & K High Court in Shamlal Saraf's case (supra) herein an application for intervention was filed on behalf of S. Mir Qasim to which an objection was raised on the ground that there is no provision in the act for allowing anybody to be heard as an intervener, the Hon'ble High Court inter-alia held that unless the Act or the rules made thereunder prohibit any particular procedure, the procedure applicable to civil suits has to be adopted in election petitions and under the Civil P.C., the Court has ample powers under Section 151 and order 1 Rule 10 to add parties in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon all the questions involved in the suit. The Hon'ble High Court has further held that Section 82 nowhere limits the power of a Court in an appropriate case to hear somebody else in an election petition and that since power is inherent in the court under Section 151and Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil P.C, there is nothing to the contrary indicated either in the Act or the rules made thereunder. 10. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and on perusal of the various decisions relied upon by the parties, this court is of the view that the issue involved herein is covered by the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jyoti Basu's case (supra) reaffirmed in B. Sundara Rami Reddy's case (supra) and reiterated in Michael B Fernandes's case (Supra). To contend that the Election Commission of India is a necessary party, two grounds - (a) since there is no restriction under Section 82, the Hon'ble High Court, in exercise of inherent power under Section 151 of the CPC, can add parties in the election petition and (b) one of the grounds in the election petition is under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) concerning non-compliance with the provisions of Article 19(1)(i) of the Constitution, have been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the election petitioner. But these two grounds have already been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases referred to above and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after analysing the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, has categorically held the Representation of the People Act to be a complete and self-contained code within which must be found any rights claimed in relation to an election or an election dispute. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that provisions of CPC have 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 the Act' and since Section 82designates the persons who are to be joined as respondents to the petition, provisions of CPC relating to joinder of parties stand excluded. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held 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 Section 82 and 86(4) of the Act and no others. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Md. Hanif Quareshi's case is not applicable to the facts of the present case because the same has been rendered in a different context and not as regards the provisions of Section 82 of the Act. So far as the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of J & K is concerned, it is the decision of a Hon'ble High Court and moreover, it has been delivered long before the decisions, as stated above, are rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In other words, since the law having been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the said decision of the Hon'ble High Court does not hold the field and stands overruled and no reliance can be made thereon. 11. In other words, since the law having been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the said decision of the Hon'ble High Court does not hold the field and stands overruled and no reliance can be made thereon. 11. Another submission of the learned counsel appearing for the election petitioner is that the Electronic Voting Machines used in the election have been tampered to the advantage of the returned candidate and that the use of Electronic Voting Machines, without VVPAT, has violated the right to know guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and therefore, the Election Commission of India and the Chief Electoral Officer, Manipur are necessary parties to respond to and satisfy this court in that regard. To substantiate his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Subramanium Swamy Vs. Election Commission of India reported in (2013) 10 SCC 500 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed: "29. From the materials placed by both the sides, we are satisfied that the 'paper trail' is an indispensable requirement of free and fair election. The confidence of the voters in the EVMs can be achieved only with the introduction of the 'paper trail'. EVMs with VVPAT system ensure the accuracy of the voter system. With an intent to have fullest transparency in the system and to restore the confidence of the voters, it is necessary to set up EVMs with VVPAT system because vote is nothing but an act of expression which has immense importance in democratic system." This court is unable to accept this submission for the reason that this decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has nothing to do with the present issue as to whether the Election Commission of India is a necessary party or not and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a writ petition wherein the prayer was made for issuance of a mandamus directing the Election Commission of India to incorporate a system of 'paper trail/paper receipt' in the EVMs. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 30 of the judgment has allowed the Election Commission of India to implement the use of EVMS with VVPAT in a phased manner in view of the total number of polling booths to be handled by the Election Commission of India. 12. With the above observations, both the Misc. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 30 of the judgment has allowed the Election Commission of India to implement the use of EVMS with VVPAT in a phased manner in view of the total number of polling booths to be handled by the Election Commission of India. 12. With the above observations, both the Misc. Cases being M.C. (E.P.) No. 2 of 2012 and M.C (E.P.) No. 3 of 2012 are allowed and it is directed that the names of the Election Commission of India and the Chief Electoral Officer, Manipur be deleted from the array of parties in the election Petition. There shall be no order as to costs.