# Anuj Tyagi v. District Election Officer (Municipal Board General Election-2023), Collectorate District Ghaziabad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 285
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-15
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 6327 of 2025
- **Bench:** Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anuj-tyagi-v-district-election-officer-municipal-board-general-election-2023-53115
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Civil Law - The Uttar Pradesh Municipal
Corporations Act, 1959 - Sections 63(3) &
62 (4)-Amendment application was moved by
election petitioner/respondent no. 4-to implead
the other five unsuccessful candidates as
respondents- allowed by an ex-parte order on
17.09.2024
-recall
application-rejected
-
impugned-defect of non-joinder of all contesting
candidates in an election petition is not a
curable defect- Section 63 (3) - in an election
petition, petitioner has to join as respondents in
his petition all the contesting candidates-Section
62(4)-provides the time limit for filing of election
petition-any defect can be cured within the time
limit prescribed -no alteration can be made
once the time prescribed therein expiresimpugned orders against the provisions of
Section 63(3) read with Section 62(4) of the Act
of 1959.

W.P. allowed. (E-9)

Cases Cited:

## Text

4 All. Anuj Tyagi Vs. District Election Officer (Municipal Board General Election-2023),
 Collectorate District Ghaziabad & Ors.
285
orders passed by Debts Recovery
Tribunal
before
the
Debts
Recovery
Appellate Tribunal.

16. In light of the same, we do not
find any reason to interfere with the Section
13(4) proceedings and the subsequent
proceedings undertaken by the bank.

17. Accordingly, with the above
observations, the writ petition is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 285
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.04.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Writ C No. 6327 of 2025

Anuj Tyagi ...Petitioner
Versus
District Election Officer (Municipal Board
General
Election-2023),
Collectorate
District Ghaziabad & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Akash Tyagi, Neha Tyagi, Pankaj Kumar
Tyagi, Satish Kumar Tyagi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ramesh Kumar Pandey, Tarun
Agrawal

Civil Law - The Uttar Pradesh Municipal
Corporations Act, 1959 - Sections 63(3) &
62 (4)-Amendment application was moved by
election petitioner/respondent no. 4-to implead
the other five unsuccessful candidates as
respondents- allowed by an ex-parte order on
17.09.2024
-recall
application-rejected
-
impugned-defect of non-joinder of all contesting
candidates in an election petition is not a
curable defect- Section 63 (3) - in an election
petition, petitioner has to join as respondents in
his petition all the contesting candidates-Section
62(4)-provides the time limit for filing of election
petition-any defect can be cured within the time
limit prescribed -no alteration can be made
once the time prescribed therein expiresimpugned orders against the provisions of
Section 63(3) read with Section 62(4) of the Act
of 1959.

W.P. allowed. (E-9)

Cases Cited:

1. Smt. Jyoti Vs Kusma Devi, 2019 (2) AllLJ 262;

2. Ramanand Gaur Vs Ram Sanehi & ors., 2012
(4) ADJ 212

3. Patangrao Kadam Vs Prithviraj Sayajirao
Yadav Deshmukh & ors., (2001) 3 SCC 594.

4. Har Swarup Vs Brij Bhushan Saran, AIR 1967
SC 836;

5. Amin Lal Vs Hunna Lal, AIR 1965 SC 1243

6. Mohan Raj Vs Surendra Kumar, AIR 1969 SC
677;

7. Chaturbhuj Chunnilal Vs Election Tribunal,
Kanpur AIR 1958 All 809

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan
Agarwal, J.)

1. The short controversy before the
Court is - "As to whether by amendment
application moved under Order VI Rule 17
CPC, amendment can be made in an
election petition filed by an unsuccessful
candidate impleading the other contesting
candidates who were not initially joined in
the election petition?"

2. Facts in brief, leading to the
present case, are that an election for
Corporator for Ward No. 87, Gyankhand
Indirapuram, Ghaziabad was held on
11.05.2023.
Counting
was
held
on
13.05.2023 and result was declared and
petitioner was declared to be successful
286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
getting 1291 votes, while the election
petitioner, respondent no. 4 secured only
1181 votes.

3. An Election Petition No. 06 of
2023 was filed by respondent no. 4 in
which only returned candidate/petitioner
along with District Election Officer,
Ghaziabad; State Election Commissioner,
Lucknow and Returning Officer, Ward No.
87, Ghaziabad were made parties. For the
election of Ward No. 87, seven candidates
had contested the election, but petitioner
had
not
impleaded
the
other
five
unsuccessful candidates as party in the
election petition.

4. Petitioner contested the election
petition and filed his written statement. An
amendment application was moved by
election petitioner/respondent no. 4 on
12.09.2024 which was allowed by an exparte order on 17.09.2024 permitting the
election petitioner to implead the other five
unsuccessful candidates as respondents in
the election petition. Petitioner/returned
candidate filed a recall application which
has
been
rejected
by
order
dated
29.01.2025 which is under challenge in the
present writ petition along with order dated
17.09.2024
allowing
the
amendment
application.

5. Counsel for petitioner submitted
that election petition filed by respondent
no. 4 is defective and Section 62(4) of The
Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act,
1959 (hereinafter called as "the Act of
1959") prescribes the period for filing an
election petition. Further, Section 63(3)
provides that where the petitioner claims a
declaration under Section 64, all the
contesting candidates, other than the
petitioner, shall be joined as respondents.
According to him, the petition moved was
defective and non-joinder of necessary
party will lead to inevitable conclusion that
petition has to be dismissed being beyond
time under Section 66.

6. Reliance has been placed upon
the decision rendered by co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in case of Smt. Jyoti vs.
Kusma Devi, 2019 (2) AllLJ 262;
Ramanand Gaur vs. Ram Sanehi and
others, 2012 (4) ADJ 212 and decision
of Supreme Court rendered in Patangrao
Kadam vs. Prithviraj Sayajirao Yadav
Deshmukh and others, (2001) 3 SCC
594.

7.
Counsel
appearing
for
respondent no. 4 submitted that defect is a
curable defect and the case laws cited by
petitioner are not applicable in the instant
case as it is under the Act of 1959 while the
decision so placed is in regard to
Representation of People Act, 1951.
According to him, Section 66 envisages
that an election petition may be dismissed
if not presented within the time allowed by
this Act or the provisions of Section 79
relating to deposit of security or the
necessary court-fee has not been complied
with.

8. In the instant case, the election
petition was filed within the prescribed
period and only the other contesting
candidates were not joined as respondents
in the election petition which will not go to
the root of the matter and election petition
cannot be thrown out. The amendment
sought does not change the character of the
case
and
only the other contesting
respondents have joined in the election
petition.

9. I have heard rival submissions
and perused the material on record.
4 All. Anuj Tyagi Vs. District Election Officer (Municipal Board General Election-2023),
 Collectorate District Ghaziabad & Ors.
287
10. Before adverting to decide the
issue in hand, a cursory glance of Section
62, 63, 64, 66 of the Act of 1959 are
necessary for better appreciation of the
case, which are extracted here-asunder:-

 "Section 62. Questioning of
election of Corporator. - (1) The election
of any person as Corporator may be
questioned by any unsuccessful candidate
at the election or by any person whose
nomination paper was rejected at the
election, or by any elector of the ward
concerned.
 (2) The petition may be presented
on any one or more of the grounds
mentioned in section 71.
 (3) The election of any person as
Corporator shall not be questioned on the
ground that the name of any person
qualified to vote, has been omitted from, or
the name of any person not qualified to
vote, has been inserted in the electoral roll
or rolls.

(4)
The
petition
shall
be
presented to the District Judge, exercising
jurisdiction in the City within 30 days of
the declaration of result of the election.

Section 63. Forms and contents
of petitions. - (1) An election petition shall
specify the ground or grounds on which the
election of respondent is questioned and
shall contain a concise statement of the
material facts on which the petitioner
relies, and shall set forth full particulars of
any corrupt practice which the petitioner
alleges, including as full a statement as
possible as to the names of the parties
alleged to have committed such corrupt
practice and the date and place of the
commission of each such practice.

(2) The petition and if there is
any schedule or annexure to the petition,
such schedule or annexure also, shall be
signed by the petitioner and verified in the
manner laid down in the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, for the verification of
pleadings.

(3) A petitioner shall join as
respondent to his petition. -

(a) where the petitioner claims a
declaration under section 64, all the
contesting candidates, other than the
petitioner, and in any other case all the
returned candidates ;

(b) any other candidate against
whom allegations of any corrupt practice
are made in the petition.

Section 64. Relief that may be
claimed by the petitioner. - A petitioner
may, in addition to claiming a declaration
that the election of all or any of the
returned candidates is void, claim a further
declaration that he himself or any other
candidate has been duly elected.

Section 66. Petition when to be
dismissed. - If an election petition has not
been presented within the time allowed by
this Act or it does not comply with any
previsions made under section 79 relating
to deposit of security or the necessary
court-fee payable thereon is not furnished
within the time allowed therefor it shall
forthwith be rejected by the District
Judge."

11. Section 62 provides for the
questioning of election of a Corporator by
any unsuccessful candidate. It can be
presented on any one or more grounds as
mentioned in section 71. Sub-section (4) of
Section 62 is of great relevance as it
prescribes the time limit within which an
election petition could be presented. A
period of 30 days has been provided from
the declaration of result for the presentation
of election petition.

12. Section 63 provides forms and
contents of petitions. It lays down that an
288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
election petition shall specify the ground or
grounds
on
which
the
election
of
respondent is questioned and it shall
contain a concise statement of the material
facts on which the petitioner relies. Subsection (2) provides that if there are any
schedule or annexure to the election
petition, it shall be signed by the petitioner
and verified in the manner as laid down in
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for
verification of pleadings. Sub-section (3) of
Section 63 is of great relevance as it clearly
provides that petitioner shall join as
respondent to his petition, all the contesting
candidates, other than the petitioner, where
the petitioner claims a declaration under
Section 64, and in any other case all the
returned candidates. Thus, sub-section (3)
clearly
clarifies
that
all
contesting
candidates has to be joined as respondents
in an election petition. This provision has
to be read in consonance with sub-section
(4) of Section 62, which requires an
election petition to be presented within 30
days of the declarations of the result.
Joinder of all contesting candidates is must
for the maintainability of the petition
questioning election of any Corporator
under Section 62 read with Section 63.
Result of non-joinder of all necessary
parties would lead to an inevitable
conclusion
that
election
petition
as
mandated under sub-section (4) of Section
64 was not presented within 30 days from
the date of declaration of result, which
would lead to a situation where the petition
may be dismissed under Section 66.

13. The defect of non-joinder of all
contesting candidates in an election petition
is not a curable defect. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court while dealing with matter
under Representation of People Act in
Patangrao Kadam (supra) considering
the earlier view of Apex Court rendered in
Har Swarup vs. Brij Bhushan Saran,
AIR 1967 SC 836; Amin Lal vs. Hunna
Lal, AIR 1965 SC 1243 and decision in
Mohan Raj vs. Surendra Kumar, AIR
1969 SC 677; Chaturbhuj Chunnilal vs.
Election Tribunal, Kanpur AIR 1958 All
809 held that impleadment under Order I
Rule 10 and amendment under Order VI
Rule 17 is power preserved to the Court,
but when the Act makes a person necessary
party and provides that petition shall be
dismissed if such a party is not joined, the
power of amendment or to strike out parties
cannot be used at all. Relevant para 20 is
extracted here-asunder:-

"20. The view that a candidate,
who is duly nominated, continues to be a
candidate for the purpose of Section 82(b)
in spite of withdrawal, is supported by the
decisions of Har Swarup [AIR 1967 SC 836
: (1967) 1 SCR 342] and Amin Lal v.
Hunna Mal [AIR 1965 SC 1243 : (1965) 1
SCR 393] . This Court referring to the said
decisions in Mohan Raj v. Surendra Kumar
Taparia [AIR 1969 SC 677 : (1969) 1 SCR
630] agreed with the said view. Further the
decision in Chaturbhuj Chunnilal v.
Election Tribunal, Kanpur [AIR 1958 All
809] taking the same view after elaborate
consideration on all aspects touching the
question is approved. Dealing with the
applications made for impleadment under
Order 1 Rule 10 and amendment under
Order 6 Rule 17, in para 10 of the same
judgment, this Court had stated thus: (AIR
p. 681)

"No
doubt
the
power
of
amendment is preserved to the Court and
Order 1 Rule 10 enables the Court to strike
out parties but the Court cannot use Order
6 Rule 17 or Order 1 Rule 10 to avoid the
consequences of non-joinder for which a
special provision is to be found in the Act.
The Court can order an amendment and
4 All. Anuj Tyagi Vs. District Election Officer (Municipal Board General Election-2023),
 Collectorate District Ghaziabad & Ors.
289
even strike out a party who is not
necessary. But when the Act makes a
person a necessary party and provides that
the petition shall be dismissed if such a
party is not joined, the power of
amendment or to strike out parties cannot
be used at all. The Civil Procedure Code
applies subject to the provisions of the
Representation of the People Act and any
rules made thereunder (see Section 87).
When the Act enjoins the penalty of
dismissal of the petition for non-joinder of
a party the provisions of the Civil
Procedure Code cannot be used as curative
means to save the petition."

14. The co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in Smt. Jyoti (supra) while dealing
with a matter under U.P. Municipalities
Act, 1916 where the provisions are
somewhat similar to those of the Act of
1959 held that an amendment cannot be
allowed to remove a defect that may
warrant rejection of an election petition.

15. For better understanding,
Section 20 of the U.P. Municipalities Act,
1916 is extracted here-asunder:-

 "20. From and presentation of
election petitions:-

(1) An election petition shall be
presented within 30 days after the day on
which the result of the election sought to
be questioned is announced by the
Returning Officer, and shall specify the
ground or grounds on which the election of
the respondent is questioned and shall
contain a concise statement of the material
facts on which the petitioner relies and set
forth the full particulars of any corrupt
practices that the petitioner alleges,
including as full a statement as possible of
the names of the parties alleged to have
committed such corrupt practices and the
dates and place of the commission of each
such practice.

(2) The petition shall be signed by
the petitioner and verified in the manner
laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (V of 1908), for the verification of
pleadings.

(3) The petition may be presented
by any candidate in whose favour votes
have been recorded and who claims in the
petition to be declared elected in the room
of the person whose election is questioned
or by ten or more electors of the
municipality or by a person who claims
that his nomination paper was improperly
rejected.

(4)The person whose election is
questioned and, where the petitioner claims
that any other candidate should be
declared elected in the room of such
person, every unsuccessful candidate who
is not a petitioner in the petition shall be
made a respondent to the petition.

(5)
The
petition
shall
be
presented to the District Judge exercising
jurisdiction in the area in which the
municipality, to which the election petition
relates, is situate:

Provided that the petition shall
not be entertained by the District Judge
unless it is accompanied by a treasury
challan showing that the prescribed
security has been deposited."

16. Sub-section (4) of Section 20
provides
that
where
an
election
is
questioned and petitioner claims that any
other candidate should be declared elected
in the room of such person, every
unsuccessful candidate who is not a
petitioner in the petition shall be made a
respondent to the petition. Sub-section (4)
of Section 20 is somewhat similar to subsection (3) of Section 63 of the Act of 1959
which also provides that petitioner shall
290 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
join all the contesting candidates as
respondents to his petition. The Court
proceeded to hold that amendment if
allowed would be against the statutory
provisions of Section 20(4) of the Act of
1916. Relevant paras 20, 21, 22 and 23 are
extracted here-asunder:-

"20. By virtue of section 23 of the
Act, 1916, courts have applied the general
provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code
of Civil Procedure to allow amendments.
However, a plain reading of section 23 of
the Act, 1916 would go to show that
general provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure could be applied only if there is
no inconsistent provision in the Act or the
Rules. Sub-section (4) of section 20 of the
Act, 1916 clearly provides that where the
election petition claims that any other
candidate should be declared elected in the
room of such person whose election is
questioned, every unsuccessful candidates,
if not impleaded as the petitioner, be made
a respondent to the petition. A defect in that
regard would have to be dealt with in the
manner provided in Section 22 of the Act,
1916. Under the circumstances, the general
powers available under Order 6 Rule 17
C.P.C. cannot be invoked to remove a
defect that may warrant rejection of the
petition under Section 22 of the Act, 1916,
unless removal of such defect is sought
within such period of time as may be
permissible under the Act, 1916.

21. The decision of the apex court
in the case of Harish Chandra's case
(supra) as well as K. Venkateswara Rao's
case (supra) is clear on the issue that
power under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C.
cannot be exercised to alter the character
of the election petition so as to make it in
substance a new petition, if a fresh petition
on that cause of action would by then be
barred.

22. In the instant case, the
election petition as instituted was only to
declare the election of the returned
candidate as null and void. There was no
prayer by the election petitioner to declare
him elected in the room of the person
whose election was questioned i.e. the
returned candidate. With the amendment,
the character of the petition was sought to
be changed so as to include a relief for
such declaration and, to maintain such a
relief, to add every unsuccessful candidate
as party respondent.

23. Admittedly, the amendment
application was filed after the period of
limitation provided under the Act, 1916 for
presentation of such an election petition
had expired. Therefore such an amendment
application
could
not
have
been
entertained and allowed in view of the law
laid down by the apex court in Harish
Chandra's
case
(supra)
and
K.
Venkateswara Rao's case (supra). The
decision in Smt. Sarita Gupta's case
(supra) relied upon by the learned counsel
for the respondent, with due respect,
cannot come to the rescue of the
respondent inasmuch as the said decision
fails to notice the apex court's decisions
that have been noticed herein above."

17. Thus, sub-section (3) of Section
63 clearly spells out that in an election
petition,
petitioner
has
to
join
as
respondents
in
his
petition
all
the
contesting candidates.

18. In the instant case, election
petition filed on 31.05.2023 did not include
the other five unsuccessful candidates - 1.
Ashwani Kumar Singh 2. Salek Chandra
Tyagi 3. Nand Lal Sharma 4. Gaurav
Kumar and 5. Rahul Mani Kudesiya. It was
by amendment made after more than one
year that an application under Order VI
4 All. Ishan Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
291
Rule 17 was moved on 12.09.2024
for impleading the other five unsuccessful
candidates as respondents in the petition.
The said amendment application is not
maintainable as the Act clearly provides in
sub-section (3) of Section 63 that election
petition should be joined by all contesting
candidates as respondents.

19. The defect in the election
petition cannot be cured through an
amendment application moved by election
petitioner. Section 62(4) provides the time
limit for filing of election petition. Any
defect can be cured within the time limit
prescribed under the said provision and no
alteration can be made once the time
prescribed therein expires.

20. The court below had wrongly
allowed the amendment application and
rejected the recall application filed by
returned candidate which is against the
provisions of Section 63(3) read with
Section 62(4) of the Act of 1959.

21. In view of above, the order
dated 17.09.2024 passed on the amendment
application and order dated 29.01.2025
passed on the recall application are hereby
set aside.

22.
The
writ
petition
stands
allowed.

23. The question as framed above
stands answered that is in favour of
petitioner and against respondent no.
4/election petitioner.

----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 291
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.04.2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 10619 of 2025

Ishan Chaudhary & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Akhileshwar Pratap Singh, Atul Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I, Komal Mehrotra

Civil Law - The Uttar Pradesh Revenue
Code, 2006- Section 80 -Application for
allotment of dealership of a Retail outlet (Petrol
Pump -rejected-the land obtained by the
petitioners on lease- application did not meet
'Dealer Selection Guidelines 2023' - as 'there are
multiple co-owners -whereas lease deed is done
from only one co-owner-impugned- Section 80
(4)
-the
division
of
holding
and
the
determination of shares of the co-bhumidhars in
a joint holding- is a pre-condition for seeking
declaration Section 80 (1) and (2)- reverse
implication cannot be inferred- no document to
demonstrate that the division of property
between all the co-owners -in case only one of
the co-bhumidhars is desirous of getting a
declaration for his share in the land with joint
interest-application be entertained only after the
respective shares of the co-bhumidhars land are
divided.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra
Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned counsel appearing
for the respondents.

2. Present writ petition has been
filed, seeking to assail the order dated
4.3.2025
passed
by
respondent