RAGHUNATHSINGH Vs. GOVARDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE problem at this stage is to decide whether in Para 4 (B)of the petition while naming "girdharilal Patel agent of respondent No. 2" as one of the speakers in a meeting at Badnawar on the 17ih February 1967, making an allegation against him which amounted to a corrupt practice, justifying the avoidance of the election of respondent No. 1 the petitioner actually meant the Girdharilal Patel Advocate, belonging to village Bidwal and practising at Badnawar, or whether, as he now makes out, he meant another girdharilal Patel, a cultivator from village Dholana. The difference is very material to the competency of the petition, if he really meant the Girdharilal patel Advocate at Badnawar, his petition would automatically fail for omitting to join him as a party respondent because this Girdharilal Patel Advocate had entered nomination papers as a candidate of the Kisan Sabha, and the papers being accepted, he had subsequently withdrawn when he found that the papers of respondent No. 2 Ramratan Patil another candidate of the same party were found in order; in other words, this Girdharilal Patel Advocate was in popular language the "shadow" or the "dummy" candidate. Anyway, the petitioner having made an allegation against him which he meant to be a corrupt practice he should have impleaded him also and his failure to do so would lead to the dismissal of the petition.

(2.) IN fact the respondent No. 1 who is contesting this petition sought to make a point of this and prayed that the petition should be dismissed for non-joinder of Girdharilal Patel. At that stage the petitioner sought an amendment to the effect that by "girdharilal Patel" in Para 4 (b) of the petition, he did not mean the Girdharilal Patel, Advocate, who was in the election picture, but another Girdharilal Patel whom in the amendment petition he described as resident of Dholana and in regard to whom he subsequently gave the parentage. Accordingly a preliminary issue was framed by the order dated 15th november 1967 :

(3.) A new point is sought to be made by the petitioner during argument; that whatever he had alleged in the passage is really no corrupt practice and he has not stated that it is one. Accordingly, even if he had really meant the girdharilal Patel the withdrawing candidate, still it was unnecessary for him to have impleaded this person. In addition to this the petitioner has tried to establish that though he had left the residence and parentage vague while naming Girdharilal Patel in the petition, still he really meant the Dholanawala and not the Advocate Girdharilal.