Gyanparkash … v. State of U.P. Thru. the Addl. Chief Secy. Nagar Vikas Anubhag Lko. and 15

Heard Sri Ripu Daman Shahi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pankaj Srivastava, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 26.09.2025, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C.) Act, Barabanki/Election Tribunal Barabanki in Election Petition No.10 of 2023: Kusumlata Verma Vs. Gyanprakash and others, whereby the learned trial court has decided three preliminary issues no.3, 4 and 7 in favour of the election petitioner and against the petitioner of the present case. Issues no.3, 4 and 7 are as follows: 2 A227 No. - 6418 of 2025 whether "3. Assistant returning officers are necessary parties to the election petition; the Returning officer

4. whether the election petition suffers from defect of non joinder of parties, if yes its effect; and

7. whether the election petition becomes bad for non- impleadment of District Returning Officer/State Government."

3. The election petition has been filed by the opposite party no.2 challenging the election of the petitioner as Chairman, Nagar Palika, Ram Sanehi Ghat, Barabanki on the ground that he has concealed the relevant explanation in his nomination paper which amounts to dishonesty and corrupt practice and which renders this election null and void.

4. The learned trial court has referred to the provisions of Section 82 of Representation of People Act, 1951, which is as follows: "82. Parties to the petition.— A petitioner shall join as respondents to his 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."

5. The election petitioner has impleaded all 15 candidates as the opposite parties to the election petition and the trial court held that the 3 A227 No. - 6418 of 2025 election petition has been instituted in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 20(4) of U.P. Nagar Palika Act, 1916 and Section 82 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

6. The petitioner placed reliance on an order dated 02.01.2025, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Rani Sharma Vs. Election Commission of India and others: Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.30277 of 2024, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has merely issued notices to the respondents to the SLP.

7. An order issuing notice to the respondents merely records the submissions of the petitioner and it is not a judgement and it is not a precedent to be followed.

8. In B. Sundara Rami Reddy v. Election Commission of India: 1991 Supp (2) SCC 624, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: - “3. … Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 specifies the persons who are required to be joined as respondents to an election petition. Under this provision the returned candidate is a necessary party as a respondent and where relief for a declaration is claimed that the election petitioner, or any other candidate be duly elected, all the contesting candidates are necessary to be impleaded as respondents to the petition. No other person or authority except as aforesaid is required to be impleaded as a respondent to an election petition under the Act. The Election Commission of India is therefore not a necessary party to an election petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that even if the Election Commission may not be a necessary party, it was a proper party since its orders have been challenged in the election petition. He further urged that since Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is applicable to trial of an election petition the concept of proper party is applicable to the trial of election petition. We find no merit in the contention. Section 87 of the Act lays down that subject to the provisions of the Act and any rules made thereunder, every election petition shall be tried by the High Court, as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to the trial of suits. Provisions of the Civil 4 A227 No. - 6418 of 2025 Procedure Code have thus 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 this Act”. Since Section 82 designates the persons who are to be joined as respondents to the petition, provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 relating to the joinder of parties stands excluded. Under the Code even if a party is not necessary party, he is required to be joined as a party to a suit or proceedings if such person is a proper party, but the Representation of the People Act, 1951 does not provide for joinder of a proper party to an election petition. The concept of joining a proper party to an election petition is ruled out by the provisions of the Act. The concept of joinder of a proper party to a suit or proceeding underlying Order I of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be imported to the trial of election petition, in view of the express provisions of Sections 82 and 87 of the Act. The Act is a self-contained Code which does not contemplate joinder of a person or authority to an election petition on the ground of proper party. In K. Venkateswara Rao v. Bekkam Narasimha Reddi [AIR 1969 SC 872 : (1969) 1 SCR 679] , this Court while discussing the application of Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code to an election petition held that there could not be any addition of parties in the case of an election petition except under the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 86 of the Act. Again in Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal [(1982) 1 SCC 691 : (1982) 3 SCR 318] , this Court held that the concept of ‘proper party’ is and must remain alien to an election dispute under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Only those may be joined as respondents to an election petition who are mentioned in Section 82 and Section 86(4) and no others. However desirable and expedient it may appear to be, none else shall be joined as respondents. The aforesaid view has been reiterated in Michael B. Fernandes v. C.K. Jaffer Sharief: (2002) 3 SCC 521.

9. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position the Returning Officer/Assistant Returning Officer/District Returning Officer/State Government are neither necessary nor proper parties to the election petition and the election petition does not suffer from the defect of non- joinder of parties.

10. There appears to be no error or illegality in the impugned order dated 26.09.2025, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions 5 A227 No. - 6418 of 2025 Judge, Special Judge (E.C.) Act, Barabanki/Election Tribunal Barabanki in Election Petition No.10 of 2023. The petition lacks merit and it is dismissed accordingly. November 04, 2025 Ram. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

Heard Sri Ripu Daman Shahi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pankaj Srivastava, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 26.09.2025, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C.) Act, Barabanki/Election Tribunal Barabanki in Election Petition No.10 of 2023: Kusumlata Verma Vs. Gyanprakash and others, whereby the learned trial court has decided three preliminary issues no.3, 4 and 7 in favour of the election petitioner and against the petitioner of the present case. Issues no.3, 4 and 7 are as follows: 2 A227 No. - 6418 of 2025 whether "3. Assistant returning officers are necessary parties to the election petition; the Returning officer

4. whether the election petition suffers from defect of non joinder of parties, if yes its effect; and

7. whether the election petition becomes bad for non- impleadment of District Returning Officer/State Government."

3. The election petition has been filed by the opposite party no.2 challenging the election of the petitioner as Chairman, Nagar Palika, Ram Sanehi Ghat, Barabanki on the ground that he has concealed the relevant explanation in his nomination paper which amounts to dishonesty and corrupt practice and which renders this election null and void.

4. The learned trial court has referred to the provisions of Section 82 of Representation of People Act, 1951, which is as follows: "82. Parties to the petition.— A petitioner shall join as respondents to his 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."

5. The election petitioner has impleaded all 15 candidates as the opposite parties to the election petition and the trial court held that the 3 A227 No. - 6418 of 2025 election petition has been instituted in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 20(4) of U.P. Nagar Palika Act, 1916 and Section 82 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

6. The petitioner placed reliance on an order dated 02.01.2025, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Rani Sharma Vs. Election Commission of India and others: Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.30277 of 2024, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has merely issued notices to the respondents to the SLP.

7. An order issuing notice to the respondents merely records the submissions of the petitioner and it is not a judgement and it is not a precedent to be followed.

8. In B. Sundara Rami Reddy v. Election Commission of India: 1991 Supp (2) SCC 624, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: - “3. … Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 specifies the persons who are required to be joined as respondents to an election petition. Under this provision the returned candidate is a necessary party as a respondent and where relief for a declaration is claimed that the election petitioner, or any other candidate be duly elected, all the contesting candidates are necessary to be impleaded as respondents to the petition. No other person or authority except as aforesaid is required to be impleaded as a respondent to an election petition under the Act. The Election Commission of India is therefore not a necessary party to an election petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that even if the Election Commission may not be a necessary party, it was a proper party since its orders have been challenged in the election petition. He further urged that since Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is applicable to trial of an election petition the concept of proper party is applicable to the trial of election petition. We find no merit in the contention. Section 87 of the Act lays down that subject to the provisions of the Act and any rules made thereunder, every election petition shall be tried by the High Court, as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to the trial of suits. Provisions of the Civil 4 A227 No. - 6418 of 2025 Procedure Code have thus 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 this Act”. Since Section 82 designates the persons who are to be joined as respondents to the petition, provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 relating to the joinder of parties stands excluded. Under the Code even if a party is not necessary party, he is required to be joined as a party to a suit or proceedings if such person is a proper party, but the Representation of the People Act, 1951 does not provide for joinder of a proper party to an election petition. The concept of joining a proper party to an election petition is ruled out by the provisions of the Act. The concept of joinder of a proper party to a suit or proceeding underlying Order I of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be imported to the trial of election petition, in view of the express provisions of Sections 82 and 87 of the Act. The Act is a self-contained Code which does not contemplate joinder of a person or authority to an election petition on the ground of proper party. In K. Venkateswara Rao v. Bekkam Narasimha Reddi [AIR 1969 SC 872 : (1969) 1 SCR 679] , this Court while discussing the application of Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code to an election petition held that there could not be any addition of parties in the case of an election petition except under the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 86 of the Act. Again in Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal [(1982) 1 SCC 691 : (1982) 3 SCR 318] , this Court held that the concept of ‘proper party’ is and must remain alien to an election dispute under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Only those may be joined as respondents to an election petition who are mentioned in Section 82 and Section 86(4) and no others. However desirable and expedient it may appear to be, none else shall be joined as respondents. The aforesaid view has been reiterated in Michael B. Fernandes v. C.K. Jaffer Sharief: (2002) 3 SCC 521.

9. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position the Returning Officer/Assistant Returning Officer/District Returning Officer/State Government are neither necessary nor proper parties to the election petition and the election petition does not suffer from the defect of non- joinder of parties.

10. There appears to be no error or illegality in the impugned order dated 26.09.2025, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions 5 A227 No. - 6418 of 2025 Judge, Special Judge (E.C.) Act, Barabanki/Election Tribunal Barabanki in Election Petition No.10 of 2023. The petition lacks merit and it is dismissed accordingly. November 04, 2025 Ram. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)