# Charan Lal Sohu v. Nandki.: Conduct of F.lection Rules, 1961. There was nothing in the affidavit in Form 25 under this rule which required the petitioner to state the ..;curce or sources of his informati11n. When there w .. re specific rules und~r the Act no other rules were applicable. If the petition and the affidavit conformed to the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder, it could not be said that beocause the source of inform"-tion had not been aiven, the alleeations made in the petition had to be ignored. [353E-FJ · Smt. Sahodr"bai R,oi v. Ram Sineh Aha..,., & Ors. A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1079; Amulva Chandra Bhadμri v. Satish Chandra Giri & Ors. A.I.R. 1932 Cal. ?<5 and Wasudeoraoji v. 4. D. Mani A.I.R. 195! Nag .. 26, held inapplicable. (ii) Section 82(2) en101ns that, anart from the returned candiciate whose election was challeng .. d, any other candidat"' agains+ whom any allegatirns of C01TUpt practices were made sh0u'd be joined a" partif'<: to the petiti<'n Secti'ln 86 rr::l: Conduct of F.lection Rules, 1961. There was nothing in the affidavit in Form 25 under this rule which required the petitioner to state the ..;curce or sources of his informati11n. When there w .. re specific rules und~r the Act no other rules were applicable. If the petition and the affidavit conformed to the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder, it could not be said that beocause the source of inform"-tion had not been aiven, the alleeations made in the petition had to be ignored. [353E-FJ · Smt. Sahodr"bai R,oi v. Ram Sineh Aha..,., & Ors. A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1079; Amulva Chandra Bhadμri v. Satish Chandra Giri & Ors. A.I.R. 1932 Cal. ?<5 and Wasudeoraoji v. 4. D. Mani A.I.R. 195! Nag .. 26, held inapplicable. (ii) Section 82(2) en101ns that, anart from the returned candiciate whose election was challeng .. d, any other candidat"' agains+ whom any allegatirns of C01TUpt practices were made sh0u'd be joined a" partif'<: to the petiti<'n Secti'ln 86 rr::l! pointed out th•' the l0~'cal result of the contention urned by the appellant that the affidavit is defective, if accepted, would make the election petition itse'f not maintainohle for having filed a rlefective affidavit. On this ground itself the petition conld be reiected. but such H is not th' position in law ancl in our view the election petition does not suffer trom any defect on this score. (1) A.I.R. [1968) S.C. 1079. A B c D KIUSHAN CHANDER V. RAM LAL (Jagannwhon Reddy, /.) 355 The next submission bf the appellant that all issues should have been framed and tried instead of only one issue on the preliminary point is equal.y without force. Section 82(2) enjoins who the parties to the petition should be, and among those, apart from the returned candidate whose election is challenged, any other candidate against whom any allegations of corrupt practices are made in the petition should be joined. If this requirement is not fulfilled, sub-s. ( 1) of s. 86 makes it mandatory for the High Court to dismiss the election petition for non-compliance with Lhe provisions of s. 82 of the Act. The contention of the appellant that while cl. (a) of s. 82 is mandatory, cl. (b) of that section is only directory, is not tenable because reading s. 86 with s. 82 makes both els. (a) and (b) of the latter section mandatory an1 non-compliance with the requirements thereof visits the petitioner with the penalty of having his petition dismissed. In view of these provisio~, it is incumbent upon the High Court, where the allegation is that the requirements of s. 82 are not complied with. to determine that issue as a preliminary issue. If the respondent has made out his case on that issue, the Court is left with no option but to dismiss the petition for non-<:ompliance with the mandatory provisions of s. 82. This Court has held in Charan Lal Sahu v. Nandkishore Bhatt & Ors( 1) that non-compliance with the .provisions of s. 117 of the Act which is one of the sections mentioned in sub-s. (I) of s. 86 merits dismissal of the election petition. Before dealing with the third and fourth submissions, it is necessary to see what the allegations made by the petitioner in paragraphs U and 12 are. The following are the allegations in respect of these · E · paragraphs : F G H "11. That through Sh. Sardha Ram, President, Municipal Karamchari Dal, Karna! and Sh. Prithvi Raj President, Dist!. Municipal Subordinate Employees Union. Karna! the resoondent Sh. Ram Lal and Sh. Hargobind Senior Vice President, Muoicipal Committee, Karna! induced Sh. Piara Lal a caste brother of Mr. Sardha Ram to stand at the election for the Karna) Assembly Constituency for that deal Sh. Sardha Ram was promised that he would not be dismissed again even if his appeal had been dismissed by the learned Commissioner Ambala Division and Sh. Prithvi Raj would be given extension of his service. It was further promised by the respondent at the house of Sh. Piara Lal Ward No. 9, Jondle gate, Karnal that he would bear the entire election expenses of SH. Piara Lal. for the purpose and he was paid Rs. 3000 for standing in the elections in advance as gift by the responde~ on 10th Feb. 1972. It was further agreed noon that the Jan Sangh workers would also work for Sh. Piara Lal. He was actually suoolied workers and loud speaker fitted Rikshaw for prooaganda work. So this inducement to Sh. Piara Lal to stand at the election is a corrupt practice in the meaning of the sect inn 123 (1 )(A) (a) of the Rep!'escntation ot People Act and election is void .. (I) C. A. No. 2411of1972dcciJo w~rc noe1u vcu1u, ap}h-ars to us to be spacious. The case ot Mohan Smgh v. Bhanwartal and others(') cited by the peutioner has no application, because on tne tacts of that case tnere was no express a verment that one of the candidates had withdrawn his candidamre as a consi:q uence of a pronuse made to hun by the successful candidate that a job will be secured for him, as such it was held that it did not disclose an allegation of corrupt practice. The High Court, in our view, was nght.in holding that paragraphs 11 and 12 conlained allegations of corrupt practices al.eged to have been indulged in by the th1ee persons named therein. Once an allegation of corrupt practico is made against the candidates who have ottered themselves for the elections, sub-s. (b) of s. 82 of the Act applies, and the failure to impleatl the three persons named in the petition is fatal to the maintainability of the petition. The last contention that s. 82(b) is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution is equally far-fetched. The provision that non-compliance with any of the provisions of s. 82 makes it obligatory on the High Court to dismiss the petition cannot b~ said to be discriminatory, merely because substantial allegations against the respondent who had been successful at the elections cannot be tried for non-complianee with those requirements, if other unsuccessful candidates .against whom corrupt practices are allegetl arc not made parties. A petition challenging th·~ eleci:ion of a successful candidate is required to set out certain particuliirs and to join certain persons as necessary parties to that petition, anil if it omits to comply with any of the mandatory provisions of the Act the petition is liable to be dismissed under s. 86( 1). The petition cannot be split up in a manner as to maintain it in respect of allegations of corrupt practices only against some persons and not against other persons who are required to be necessary parties. In any election, where a candidate cha11enges the validity of the election of a successful candidate, and further asks that he be declared duly elected, all contesting candidates must be made parties to the petition. The reason for this provision is obvious, because other candidates who have contested have interest in the result of the election and may even challenge the petitioner's prayer for his being declared duly elected. Where corrupt practice is alleged the need for maintaining the purity of elections requires that where it appears .to the Court that persons whether candidates or not have indulged in corrupt practice, it should make an equiry in respect of such corrupt practice which has been proved at the trial. This is evident from s. 99 which requires that the Court at the time of making an order under s. 98 should also make an order, naming all persons who have, during the trial, been proved guilty of corrupt practices and also state the nature of those corrupt practices. Where any person against whom corrupt practice is alleged is a party he will naturally have sufficient opportunity to defend himself against such allegation, but a person who is not a party and a~ainst whom corruot practices have been proved at the trial, aatura! ·justice requires that he be also afforded an opportuwty le> (I) A.LR. [1964] S. C. 1366. 35~ . SUPREME CC\1,JllT REPORTS ·· · [ 1974 J.F s.c.R • .contest that finding .. In order. to facilitate- him to do so ihe proviSo . to clause {b) of sub-s. (1) of s. 99 requires. the Court give the penon· .concerned notice to appear before the Court and tO show cause why he showd not be so named. If any person whether he be a candidate .at the election or not, is found guilty of any corrupt practice as pro-' vided in s. 123 he will incur a disqualification under s· 8-A for a _period of six years fr:im the date on which the order under s. 9\1 takes effect. If such are the consequen:es of be mg found gwny of corrupt practices in cases where a person is not made a party to the petition, .and corrupt practice against him is discovered during the trial, then a person who chal,enges an election, and with the knowledge that -other candidates have indulged in corrupt practices deliberately omits 1o make thorn parties debarring them from any opportunity to defend themselves, he is visited with the penalty of having his petition dismissed for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of s. 82. The concept of fair trial requires that all candidates who are known to the petitioner to have indulged in corrupt practices should be made parties, and this is the reason why s. 82(b) has been enacted. Section '82 differs from the proviso to cl. {b) of sub-s. { 1) of s. 99 in that the former contemolates io'n;ng of parties who are known to the ·pctit10u.'r at the time of filing his petition, whereas the latter deals with the cases which are discovered duriog the trial and which were ·not known to the petitioner at the time of filing the petition. Apart from ensuring the purity of elections, and futality in regard to all election matters, one other consideration seems to be the expeditious dis.,osal of elertion oetitions. Before the amendm·nt of s. 82 :b-1 Act 27 of 1956 th~ unamended section made it incumbent on a petitioner ~·to join as resnondent lo his. petitioner candidates who were duly nominated at the election oilier .than himself, if he was so nominated." The reason for the amendment of s· 82 has been stated in the notes· on clauses to the Amendment Bill No. 33 of 1955 to be that the section as it stands· holds up the trial of an election petition because of the difficulty in servini: a notice on all those· who have been nominated· It is further stated: "Naturally, it is only the retumed ·candidate who . takes ahv interest in cont•e they are neces~arv oartle~ i11 an election petition in ~vhicb a declaration is songht that the election of all or any of the candidate would be void, but are impleaded as parties because there are alleuat;on• of corru'>t practices aeainst them in the election peti· 1ion. Where action is taken under s. 90 and· order under s. 98 of the Act dismissine the election petition or declarine the election of all or anv of the returned candidates to be vo;d and/or declaring the peti· iioner or any other candidate to have been duly elected. would delay · the disposal of the election petition, because notice will have to be H • r A B (' D KRISHAN CHANDER v. RAM LAL (Jagannwhan Reddy, /.) 359 given to all the persons named under the proviso to sub-cl. (ii) o(d.(a) ot sub-s. (I) of s. 99. The provisions of 82(b) would avoid any such delay as they make it obligatory for a person filing an election petition when he makes an allegation of corrupt practice against any candidate to make him a party on pain of the petition being dismissed l!Dder s. 86(1) if he omits to do so. It may also be pointed out that a person who offers himself to staiid as candidate at an election holds out to the voters that if elected he will truly and effectively represent them in the Assembly to which he is elected. The voters of the Coustttucncies equally expect from their candidates who have offered themselves at the election a high degree if integrity and honesty, and if there are allegations· in an election petition that any of the candi· dates qave indulged in corrupt practices, it would be in consonance with the purity of elections that they should be maade parties and the allegations of corrupt practices enquired into after giving them an QPportunity to meet those allegations. Under s. 90 though it is not required that those against whom corrupt practices have been proved should be made parties, yet they are required to be named for the purposes of being debarred from offering themselves as candidates in future. This then is the rationale underlying the mandatory requireme~ts of s. 82(b). In any view of the matter, Art. 14 has no application, because the object of s. 82 is one and indivisible in that it is incumbent on any person coming to Court to challenge an election to come ~th clean hands ~nd not atte°;lpt to p~event a full and complete enqmry or perhaps dictated by his own mterests to thwart fair trial by picking and choosing the parties to the petition. As none of the contentions urged by the appellant has any validity this appeal is dismissed with costs. ' P.B.R. Appeal dismissed.