Himachal Pradesh High Court
Surinder Kumar Alias Chaudhary ... vs Pawan Kumar on 2 January, 2024
Surinder Kumar alias Chaudhary Surinder Kaku Versus Pawan Kumar Kajal and others Election Petition No.5 of 2023 .
02.01.2024 Present: Mr. Sarthak Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Vijender Katoch, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arjun Lall, Advocate, for respondents No.2 of to 5.
Respondents No.6 to 9 already ex-parte. rt EMP No.15 of 2023 In the present Election Petition No.5 of 2023, the petitioner had impleaded Election Commission of India and its officials as party respondents No.2 to 5.
2. By way of this application, the respondents No.2 to 5 are being sought to be deleted from the array of respondents, as they are not necessary party to the aforesaid petition. In Para-4 of this application a reference is made to Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Section 86 (4) of the Act also.
In Para 8 of the application, a reference is made to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Jyoti Basu Vs. Debi Ghosal, reported in AIR 1982 SC 983, N Sundara Rami Reddy Vs. Election Commission of India and Others [1991 suppl. (2) SCC 624] and Michael B Fernandes Vs. CK Jaffer Sharief AIR 2002 SC 1041, whereby the Hon'ble ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2024 20:34:10 :::CIS Apex Court has categorically held that Election Commission cannot be joined as a party respondent in .
the Election Petition.
3. In the background of the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court as referred to in the aforesaid of application, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, after reiterating the aforesaid mandate of law, has categorically held that the Election Commission of India rt is not a necessary party in the Election Petition.
4. It has also been held, that the Officers who act in aid of the Election Commission are also not required to be impleaded as party respondents in the Election Petition. The Co-ordinate Bench in EMP No.7 of 2018, titled as Ramesh Chand versus Mahender Singh & ors., decided on 11.12.2018, has also reiterated and followed the same line of reasoning as given by the Hon'ble Apex Court as referred to above.
5. Though, this Court had issued notice on this application (EMP No.15 of 2023) directing the non-
applicants to file the reply, failing which the right to file the same shall stand closed.
6. Upon issuance of notice, reply has been filed to this application.
7. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances, including the mandate of Law passed by ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2024 20:34:10 :::CIS the Hon'ble Apex Court, in case of Jyoti Basu Vs. Debi Ghosal, reported in AIR 1982 SC 983, N Sundara .
Rami Reddy Vs. Election Commission of India and Others [1991 Suppl. (2) SCC 624] and Michael B Fernandes Vs. CK Jaffer Sharief AIR 2002 SC 1041, of as well as the mandate of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Ramesh Chand (supra), coupled with the fact that there is no opposition of this application by rt the non-applicants, as such, EMP No.15 of 2023 is allowed and the names of respondents No.2 to 5 are ordered to be deleted from the array of the parties, in this Election Petition. Let amended memo of parties be filed by the applicant-petitioner before the next date of hearing.
8. The application stands disposed of.
Election Petition No.5 of 2023
9. List this matter in 1st week of March, 2024.
EMP No.03 of 202310. Disposed of with a direction to the applicant-
petitioner to file English translation of Annexure P-5, by the next date of hearing.
(Ranjan Sharma) Judge January 02, 2024 (Bhardwaj) ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2024 20:34:10 :::CIS