# Ramanand Gaur v. Ram Sanehi and others - **Citation:** (2012) 1 ILRA 238 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2012-02-09 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44055 of 2011 - **Bench:** Arun Tandon - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramanand-gaur-v-ram-sanehi-and-others-42108 - **Pages:** 5 ## Headnote Sri Arvind Kumar Singh-II Sri P.R. Maurya Sri Uma Kant Sri Rishu Mishra C.S.C. U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947-Section 12C-readwith-Rule 3 of U.P. Panchayat Raj (Settlement of Education Dispute) Act 1994-Election Petition-non joinder of elected or failure candidate-so far relief declaring election is concern-non impleadment-not fatal-but second part of relief declaring petitioner a selected candidate-order rejecting election petition-proper-petition allowed partly. Held: Para 19 and 20 Under Rule 3 of 1994 Rules, an election petition, where only relief for declaring the election of the elected candidate as invalid is prayed for, it is not necessary to implead all other unsuccessful candidates as a party. This Court would, therefore, in the facts of the case segregate two reliefs, which have been prayed for by the election petitioner and would hold that so far as the first relief qua the election of the present petitioner being declared invalid is concerned, the petition is maintainable and does not suffer from the vice of non-impleadment of necessary parties. So far as the second relief prayed for in the election petition qua election petitioner being declared as elected after setting aside the election of the elected candidate is concerned, the petition suffers from vice of non-impleadment of other unsuccessful candidate and therefore to that extent the election petition stands dismissed. Case law discussed: (2001) 3 SCC page 594 (Para-121); AIR 2000 SC 2502; (2009) 10 SCC 541 (Para -20); AIR 1954 SC 210; (2001) 3 SCC 594 ## Text 238 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012 receipt of certified copy of the order of this Court. It may be observed that in case the respondents decide to hold disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner, they are at liberty to do so in accordance with law. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.02.2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44055 of 2011 Ramanand Gaur ...Petitioner Versus Ram Sanehi and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Siddhartha Varma Sri SAntosh Kumar MIshra Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Arvind Kumar Singh-II Sri P.R. Maurya Sri Uma Kant Sri Rishu Mishra C.S.C. U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947-Section 12C-readwith-Rule 3 of U.P. Panchayat Raj (Settlement of Education Dispute) Act 1994-Election Petition-non joinder of elected or failure candidate-so far relief declaring election is concern-non impleadment-not fatal-but second part of relief declaring petitioner a selected candidate-order rejecting election petition-proper-petition allowed partly. Held: Para 19 and 20 Under Rule 3 of 1994 Rules, an election petition, where only relief for declaring the election of the elected candidate as invalid is prayed for, it is not necessary to implead all other unsuccessful candidates as a party. This Court would, therefore, in the facts of the case segregate two reliefs, which have been prayed for by the election petitioner and would hold that so far as the first relief qua the election of the present petitioner being declared invalid is concerned, the petition is maintainable and does not suffer from the vice of non-impleadment of necessary parties. So far as the second relief prayed for in the election petition qua election petitioner being declared as elected after setting aside the election of the elected candidate is concerned, the petition suffers from vice of non-impleadment of other unsuccessful candidate and therefore to that extent the election petition stands dismissed. Case law discussed: (2001) 3 SCC page 594 (Para-121); AIR 2000 SC 2502; (2009) 10 SCC 541 (Para -20); AIR 1954 SC 210; (2001) 3 SCC 594 (Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J. ) 1. Petitioner before this Court was elected as Pradhan of the village Chutka Gaon as per the results of the elections declared on 28.10.2010. Respondent no. 1 Ram Sanehi, who was the defeated candidate, filed an election petition under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, which was registered as Election Petition No. 1 of 2010. 2. The reliefs prayed for in the election petition are as follows: "1- ;g fd mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa izfri{kh la[;k&1 dk pquko voS/k ?kksf"kr djrs gq, jn~n ?kksf"kr djrs gq, muds LFkku ij ;kph dks pquko esa fot;h ?kksf"kr fd;k tkosA 2- ;g fd vykok ;k ctk; nknjlh etdwj okyk ds oknh ftl fdlh Hkh nhxj nknjlh dk eq'rgd o utj vnkyr djkj ik;k tk; rks mldh Hkh fMdzh cgd oknh f[kykQ izfroknhx.k lkfnj Qjek;h tk;A 1 All] Ramanand Gaur V. Ram Sanehi and others 239 3- ;g fd okn O;; rFkk 'kqYd vf/koDrk oknh dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyok fn;k tk;A 3. The petitioner on service of the notice filed application dated 17th June, 2011 stating therein that the election petition suffers from the vice of nonjoinder of necessary party, inasmuch as three other persons, who were candidates in the said election, have not been made a party as required by Rule 3 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994. It was, therefore, contended that in absence of necessary parties, the election petition itself was liable to be dismissed. 4. Objections were filed to the application by the election petitioner stating therein that the petitioner has impleaded the elected candidate and it was not necessary to implead other persons. 5. The Election Tribunal by means of the order dated 12.07.2011 held that the election petition did not suffer from the vice of non-joinder of the necessary parties. It has been held that the elected candidate had been made party and that the objection taken by the elected Pradhan had no substance. 6. Not being satisfied the petitioner filed a revision under Section 12-C(6) of the Act, which has been dismissed as not maintainable. It is against these two orders that the present writ petition has been filed. 7. So far as the order passed by the revisional authority is concerned, this Court may record that a right to file revision has been provided under Section 12-C(6) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act only against the final order passed in the election petition. Against the order of the Election Tribunal dated 23.07.2011 in the facts of the case revision was not maintainable and it has rightly been dismissed as such. 8. However, since the legality of the order dated 23.07.2011 has also been challenged in the present petition, this Court will now proceed to examine the merits of the order dated 23.07.2011. 9. The contention raised on behalf of the parties revolves around the Rule 3(2) of 1994 Rules, which reads as follows: "3. Election Petition.-(1)........ (2) The person whose election is questioned and where the petition claims that the petitioner or any other candidates shall be declared elected in place of such person, every unsuccessful candidate shall be made a respondent to the application." 10. According to the petitioner since in the facts of the case both the reliefs have been prayed for i. e. declaring the election of the petitioner as invalid and thereafter to declare the election petitioner as elected, every unsuccessful candidate had to be made a party. Counsel for the petitioner Sri S.K. Verma submits that non-impeadment of necessary party is fatal to the election petition. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Patangrao Kadam vs. Prithviraj Sayajirao Yadav Deshmukh and others; (2001) 3 SCC page 594 (Para-12), Gadnis Bhawani 240 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012 Shankar V. vs. Faleiro Eduardo Martinho; AIR 2000 SC 2502 and Ram Sukh vs. Dinesh Aggarwal; (2009)10 SCC 541 (Para-20). He further explains that unsuccessful candidates will mean every candidate who had filed his nomination in the process of election and had not withdrawn the same up to the last date for withdrawal of the nomination. 11. There can be no quarrel with the proposition so canvassed by Sri Verma, insofar as impleadment of unsuccessful candidates in the election petition, wherein the relief of declaring the election petitioner as elected is concerned. 12. In the opinion of the Court, from a simple reading of Rule 3, quoted above, it is apparently clear that every unsuccessful candidate along with successful candidate has to be made a respondent in the election petition, if a declaration qua the election petitioner being elected is prayed for. 13. It is settled law that election petition proceedings are technical and special proceedings. The Supreme Court of India has explained the legal position in that regard in para-8 of its judgment in the case of Ram Sukh (supra), which reads as follows: "8. Before examining the merits of the issues raised on behalf of the election petitioner with reference to the relevant statutory provisions, it would be appropriate to bear in mind the observations of this Court in Jagan Nath v. Jaswant Singh. Speaking for the Constitution Bench, Mehr Chand Mahajan, C.J., had said that the statutory requirement of election law must be strictly observed and that the election contest is not an action at law or a suit in equity, but is purely a statutory proceeding unknown to the common law and that the Court possesses no common law power. It is also well settled that the success of a candidate who has won at an election should not be lightly interfered with and any petition seeking such interference must strictly conform to the requirements of the law. Nevertheless, it is also to be borne in mind that one of the essentials of the election law is to safeguard the purity of the election process and, therefore, the courts must zealously ensure that people do not get elected by flagrant breaches of that law or by indulging in corrupt practices, as enumerated in the Act." 14. The issue for consideration before this Court is as to whether the entire petition, as filed by the petitioner, is liable to be rejected on the ground of non-impleadment of unsuccessful candidates or only to the extent the relief of the election petitioner being declared elected is prayed. 15. In the opinion of the Court Rule 3 is in two parts. First part deals with the petition where the relief of declaring the election of the elected candidate as invalid and the other where the second relief of declaring the election petitioner as elected is also prayed. Non-impleadment of unsuccessful candidates is fatal so far as relief second is concerned. In absence of such unsuccessful candidates being impleaded the second relief of declaring the election petitioner as elected cannot be granted. To that extent the contention 1 All] Ramanand Gaur V. Ram Sanehi and others 241 raised by Sri Verma is upheld and the relief prayed in the election petition to that extent had to be declared as nonmaintainable. 16. Reference may also be had to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relied upon by the counsel for the respondent, in the case of Jagan Nath v. Jaswant Singh and others; AIR 1954 SC 210, wherein it has been held that merely because consequences have not been provided because of nonimpleadment of unsuccessful candidates under the rules, the same may not be fatal and the Tribunal is entitled to deal with the matter under proviso to Order IX Rule 10 and 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 17. Suffice is to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2001) 3 SCC 594 wherein it has been explained that nonimpleadment of the parties, as required under the statutory provision, would be fatal and having regard to Section 82 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 it has further been explained that no subsequent impleadment can be permitted, as it would negate the statutory provision. It has been finally laid down as follows: "Unambiguous language and clear terms contained in Section 82(b) read with Section 79(b) is mandatory. Section 86(1) does not leave any option to High Court but to dismiss an election petition for non-compliance with Sections 81, 82 and 117. 18. This takes the Court to the second issue as to whether in absence of unsuccessful candidates being impleaded in the election petition, the relief of declaring the election of the elected candidate as null and void can be granted or not. 19. Under Rule 3 of 1994 Rules, an election petition, where only relief for declaring the election of the elected candidate as invalid is prayed for, it is not necessary to implead all other unsuccessful candidates as a party. This Court would, therefore, in the facts of the case segregate two reliefs, which have been prayed for by the election petitioner and would hold that so far as the first relief qua the election of the present petitioner being declared invalid is concerned, the petition is maintainable and does not suffer from the vice of non-impleadment of necessary parties. 20. So far as the second relief prayed for in the election petition qua election petitioner being declared as elected after setting aside the election of the elected candidate is concerned, the petition suffers from vice of nonimpleadment of other unsuccessful candidate and therefore to that extent the election petition stands dismissed. 21. Writ petition is partly allowed. Interim order is discharged. 22. The Tribunal is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. --------- 242 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.01.2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE S. K. SINGH, J. THE HON'BLE PANKAJ NAQVI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56885 of 2003 R. B. Saxena ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents Counsel fo the Petitioner: Sri B.P. Singh Sri V.K. Singh Sri V.K. Goel Counsel for the Respondents; Sri A.K. Gaur Sri Govind Saran C.S.C. Constitution of India-Article 226-Judicial Property-recording reasons-even Quasi Judicial/Administrative Authorities are bound to give reasons-in support of their conclusions-neither disciplinary authority nor appellate authority nor the Tribunal-Followed this principle-Writ Court can not adjudicate the question of fact-matter remitted back before Central Administrative Tribunal for fresh decision. Held: Para 19 In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that decision taken by the departmental authority being non speaking even the tribunal has not taken pains of noticing the facts, report and the submission that all other charged employees were exonerated and although the petitioner has not been found to be signatory of the appointment letters and it is said that only two fake appointment letters were supplied by him, extreme penalty of removal from service has been given. Case law discussed: AIR 1986 SC 1173; AIR 1966 SC 671; AIR 1976 SC 1785; (2005) 2 SC 235; (2008) 3 SCC 469 (Delivered by Hon'ble S. K. Singh, J. ) 1. Heard Sri B. P. Singh, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by his colleague Sri V. K. Singh and Sri A. K. Gaur, learned Advocate who appeared for the respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition prayer has been made for quashing the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad dated 9.9.2003 passed in Original Application No. 964 of 1997 (annexure no. 15 to the writ petition) and the orders dated 9.5.1996, 30.7.1996 and 25.4.1997 (annexure no. 11, 12 and 13 respectively to the writ petition). 3. For disposal of the writ petition facts in brief will suffice. 4. Petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1965 as Electrical Khalasi i.e. Group D post at Allahabad under Assistant Shop Superintendent (TR-D). Thereafter he was promoted as Judicial Clerk and in the year 1992 when he was working as Senior Clerk in the office of Divisional Electrical Engineer, Aligarh he was served with a major penalty charge sheet dated 1.10.1992. Finally the disciplinary authority without considering the reply and the details given by the petitioner by order dated 9.5.1996 removed the petitioner from service, upon which petitioner filed appeal and revision but both were dismissed vide orders dated 30.7.1996 and 25.4.1997 and Original Application filed before the Tribunal was also dismissed on 9.8.2003 and thus all the four orders are under challenge.