B.S. YADIYURAPPA versus MAHALINGAPPA AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 12 · Decided: 10-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B.S. YADIYURAPPA 
v. 
MAHALINGAPPA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 10, 2001 
B 
[S.P. BHARUCHA, Y.K. SABHARWAL AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Representation of People Act, 1951 : Sections 82 and 86. 
Election petition-Necessary parties as required under Section 82 
impleaded as respondents-,Respondents in excess of requirement of Section 
82 also impleaded as respondents-Held, such impleadment was not violative • 
of Section 82-Dismissal of petition not justm_ed-ln such a case Court can 
strike out such a party who is not a necessary party. 
The appellant filed an election petition praying that election of first 
respondent be declared void and that he be declared duly elected. To this 
eiection petition the Returning Officer and the District Election 
Commissioner were also impleaded as respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Respondent 
No. 1 filed an application praying that names of respondent Nos. 4 and 
5 be deleted from the array of parties and election petition be dismissed 
because of their impleadment. High Court allowed the applieation and 
dismissed the election petition under SectiOn 86(1) of the Represenation 
of the People Act, 1951 on the ground that parties other than those 
mentioned in Section 82 of the said Act had been impleaded thereto. The 
election petitioner filed appeal before this Court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
. 
. 
. 
HELD : Those who .are mentioned in Section 82 of the Representation 
of People Act, 1951 must be made parties to an election petition a~d, if 
they are not, the election petition is one which does not comply with the 
provisions of Section ~2 and must, therefore, be dismissed by reason of 
the terms ofSection 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 petition 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 
H 
impleaded. The judgment and order under appeal is set aside and the 
12 
0 
B.S. YADIYURAPPA v. MAHALINGAPPA [BHARUCHA, J.] 
13 
names of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are deleted from the array of parties 
A 
to the election petition. The election petitiOn is restored to the file of the 
High Court of Karnataka to be heard and disposed oi on merits. 
(15-C-E) 
M<i.rarka Radhey Shyam Ram kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore & Ors., 
[1964]3 SCR 573 and Mohan Raj v. Surendra Kumar Taparia & Ors., [1969] 
B 
1 SCR 630, referred to. 
Jyoti Basu & Ors. v. Devi (]hosal & Ors., [1982] 1 SCC 691, explained. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 734 of 2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.11.2000 of the Karnataka High 
Court in I.A. No. 5 in E.P. No. 16 of 1999. 
S.N. Bhat for the appellant. 
D.K. Garg and Ashok Kumar Sharma for the Respondent. 
Sanjay R. Hegde and ~atya Mitra for State. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by . 
c 
D 
BHARUCHA, J. The election to the 11th Karnataka Legislative Assembly 
E 
from 167 Shikaripura constituency was held ori 11th September, l999. 
Respondent No. 1 was declared elected. The appellant was one of the 
candidates at the eiection and he filed an election petition in the High Court 
of Karnataka. he prayed therein that the election of the first respondent be 
declared void and that he, the appellant, be declared duly elected. To the 
F 
election petition were impleaded the other two contesting candidates, namely, 
respondent nos. 2 and 3, and the Returning Officer and the District Election 
Commissioner, as respondent nos. 4 and 5. The latter two were impleaded 
because of the allegations made against them in the election petition. 
Respondent nos. 4 and 5 moved an interim application in the election 
petition praying that their names be deleted from the array of parties thereto. 
An application to the same effect· was made by the first respondent; he also 
moved an application praying that the election petition be dismissed because 
G 
of the impleadment of respondent nos. 4 and 5. By the judgment and order 
under chalienge, a learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the latter 
H 
• 
14 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
application. He dismissed the election petition under the provisions of Section 
86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ("the said Act") because 
parties other than thos·e mentioned in Section 82 of the said Act had been 
implead

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.