LexPATANGRAO KADAM versus PRITHVIRAJ SAYAJIRAO YADAV DESHMUKH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
+ A PATANGRAO KADAM v. ~ PRITHVIRAJ SAYAJIRAO YADAV DESHMUKH AND ORS. FEBRUARY26, 2001 B [DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., R.C. LAHOTI AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] Election Law : c Representation of People Act, 1951: Sections 79(b), 82(b), JOO and 123. Election-Election pet it ion--C omtpt practice-Allegation of-Non-join- der of necessary pmty-Effect of-Duly nominated candidate withdrew his candidature and became election agent of the returned candidate-Bur such candidate not made a party to the election although corrupt practice alleged D against him-Maintainability of-Held : A duly nominated candidate, even after withdrmval, renzains a cand;date and has to be joined as a necessary party-His non-joinder is fatal to the election petition-Hence, election peti- tion rightly dismissed. E Word< and Phrases : "Candidate "-Meaning of-In the context of S. 79(b) of the Representa- tion of People Act, 1951. The Appellant-defeated candidate filed an election petition before F the High Court impugning the election of respondent No. I-returned can- didate to be void under Sections lOO(l)(b), lOO(l)(d)(ii) and lOO(l)(d)(iv) read with Section 123(4) of the Repre~entation of People Act, 1951 and sought for further declaration that he should he declared as elected. S, a validly nominated candidate, withdrew his candidature and became an G election agent of respondent No. 1. The High Court dismissed the election petition under Section~ of the Act for non-compliance of Section 82(b) inasmuch as S, a validly nominated candidate, against whom allegations of corrupt practice were made, was not made a party to the election petition. .... Hence this appeal. H Dismissing the appeal, the Court 118 - PATANGRAO KADAM v. PRITHVIRAJ SAYAJ!RAO YADAV DESHMUKH 119 HELD : 1. The distinction between a candidate who has withdrawn and a candidate who has continued till the contest is over is of no rel- evance. As per Section 82 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 the appellant was required to join all the contesting candidates other than himself and further he had to join any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt l'ractice were made inthe petition. Even though S had withdrawn his candidature after it had been °duly accepted and notified he could not go out of the definition elf "candidate" within the meaning of Section 79(b). [125-E; G-Hl 2. S had to be necessarily joined as a respondent. He was candidate within the meaning of Section 70(b) and in the election petition the appel- lant had sought a further declaration that he should be declared as duly elected. Hence Section 82(b) got attracted. Merely because S became an election agent of respondent No. 1 subsequently after withdrawal of his candidature, he did not cease to be a "candidate'' within the meaning of Section 79(b). [126-F-G] 3.1. Since serious consequences follow against a candidate within the meaning of Section 79(b) indulging in corrupt practices in an election, principles of natural justice do demand of providing an opportunity to such a candidate. Therefore, impleadink of S as respondent to the election petition was necessary in terms of Section 82(b). [128-G] 3.2. S did not cease to be a candidate within the meaning of Section 79(b) and, therefore, his non-joining as respondent in the election petition was fatal. [129-G] A B c D E Natau Ram Indra Singh v. Trikamal Jamandas Pate~ 37 ELR 267; Har F Swarup v. Brij Bhushan Saran, AIR (1967) SC 836 and Amin I.al v. Hwma Ma~ [1965] 1 SCR 393, relied on. Keshavji Ravji v. CIT, AIR (1991) SC 1806; Mohan Raj v. Surendra Kumar Tapar, AIR (1969) SC 677; Chaturbhuj v. Election Tribunal, Kanpur, AIR (1958) All. 809; Ram Pratap Chandel v. Chaudhary I.ajja Ram, (1998] 8 G SCC 564 and Gadnis Bhawani Shankarv. Faleiro Eduardo Martinho, (2000] 7 sec 472, referred to. Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (1988] 2 SCC 299, cited. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1789of1998. !-I 120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R. A From the Judgment and Order dated 29.1.98 of the Bombay High Court B c D E F G H in E.P. No. 5 of 1996. WITH Civil Appeal Nos. 2080-2081 of 1998. P.P. Rao, V.A. Mohta, Nikhil Sakhardande, Ms. Meenakshi Sakhardande, Ms. Poonam, Mrs. V.D. Khanna, S.V. Deshpande, PramitSaxena, L.M. Acharya, Ms. Anuradha Rastogi and S.M. Jadhav for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHIVARAJ V. P
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.