Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 527 (RAJ)

Deepa Devi v. Rakhsa Bhandari

2016-04-13

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 02.03.2016 passed by the District Judge, Sirohi ('the learned Judge'), whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 14, Rule 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC has been partly allowed. 2. The respondent No. 1 filed an election petition under Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 ('the Rules') calling in question the election of petitioner Deepa Devi as Member of Panchayat Samiti, Sirohi on the ground that on the date of election, she was disqualified for such election. The respondent also sought a declaration in her favour. 3. The election petition was contested by the petitioner by filing reply, wherein inter alia objections regarding non-impleadment of necessary party was raised. 4. The learned Judge based on the pleadings of the parties, framed five issued, which inter alia pertained to the election petition being barred by limitation and non-impleadment of necessary parties. 5. Where after, the petitioner filed application under Order 14, Rule 2 CPC, inter alia, seeking decision on issues pertaining to limitation and necessary party as preliminary issues. 6. The learned judge after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that while the issue pertaining to the limitation deserves to be considered as preliminary issue, there was no justification for deciding the issue pertaining to necessary party as preliminary issue and the same would be decided after the trial and, consequently partly allowed the application. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Judge was not justified in partly allowing the application filed by the petitioner, inasmuch as, the issue pertaining to the lack of necessary party is also an issue, which goes to the root of the matter and decision on the said issue would result in decision of the election petition and, therefore, the same deserves to be considered as preliminary issue. Learned counsel prayed that as the order passed by the learned Judge cannot be sustained, the same deserves to be set aside. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 9. Learned counsel prayed that as the order passed by the learned Judge cannot be sustained, the same deserves to be set aside. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 9. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to make submissions regarding the plea raised by the petitioner regarding lack of necessary party and was heard on the validity of the objection itself. 10. The provision of Rule 83 of the Rules, which deals with parties to the petition reads as under:- "Rule 83. Parties to the petition.- The person whose election is challenged, and where the petition claims that any other candidate shall be declared as elected in place of such person, every unsuccessful candidate, has polled more votes than such candidate, shall be made respondent to the petition." 11. A. bare look at the above provision reveals that the person whose election is challenged, and where a declaration is sought that any other candidate be declared as elected, every unsuccessful candidate, who has polled more votes than such candidate, shall be made respondent to the petition. 12. In the present case as per the averments made in the election petition, the petitioner - the returned candidate polled 1781 votes, the respondent No.1 election petitioner polled 1153 votes and another candidate Chandra Kiran polled 958 votes and 127 votes were rejected. 13. In view of the specific provision pertaining to joining of parties to election petition under Rule 83 of the Rules, as except for the returned candidate i.e. the petitioner, no one else had polled more than the respondent No. 1 election petitioner, there was no requirement in law to implead the third candidate Chandra Kiran as party to the election petition. 14. The law regarding impleadment of parties is well settled by various pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court including Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal, AIR 1982 SC 983 , wherein it has been held that none may be joined as party to an election petition otherwise then as provided by provisions of the Act and Rules. 15. 14. The law regarding impleadment of parties is well settled by various pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court including Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal, AIR 1982 SC 983 , wherein it has been held that none may be joined as party to an election petition otherwise then as provided by provisions of the Act and Rules. 15. In view of the above, as the plea raised by the petitioner in the reply to the election petition regarding non-impleadment of necessary party, which led to framing of issue No. 4, itself has no substance, it cannot be said that the learned Judge committed any error in passing the order impugned. No interference is called for in the order impugned. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.