- (1.) Heard Sri Raj Karan Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. 1. Respondent no. 2-Sadhana Bharatiya, questioned the election of petitioner-Rajendra Prasad as Pradhan under Section 12-C of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (for short the "Act") before the Election Tribunal. A plea of non-joinder of Rakesh Kumar was raised by Rajendra Prasad-respondent no. 1 in the election petition on the ground that although Rakesh Kumar filed his nomination yet he was not impleaded as respondent in the election petition. The said plea was rejected by the Tribunal on 26.10.2013, which is impugned in the petition.
(2.) Sri Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the strength of the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Patangrao Kadam v. Prithviraj Sayajirao Yadav Deshmuk, 2001 3 SCC 594 and of this Court in the case of Ramanand Gaur v. Ram Sanehi and others, 2012 115 RevDec 794, submitted that on the facts of the present case, the Tribunal ought to have directed the election petitioner to implead Rakesh Kumar as one of the respondents.
(3.) Rule 3(2) of the U.P. Panchayat (Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994 reads as under: "The person whose election is questioned and where the petition claims that the petitioner or any other candidate shall be declared elected in place of such person, every unsuccessful candidate shall be made a respondent to the application.";