- (1.) By means of this petition the petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 14-12-1993 passed by the 10th Addl. District Judge, Lucknow, opposite party No.1, contained in Annexure 3 to the writ petition, and further for quashing the proceedings of Election Petition No.1 of 1992 (Mohammad Khalid Qurreshi v. Raj Kumar Shukla and others).
(2.) According to the petitioner the election of Members of Cantonment Board, Lucknow were held in 1991-92. The election schedule was as under:- Date of nomination 30-12-1991. Date of scrutiny 2-1-1992. Date of withdrawal of nomination. 3-1-1992. Date of polling 2-2-1992. Date of declaration of results. 3-2-1992. The petitioner and opposite parties 2 to 8, besides Sri Virendra Kumar Shukla and Sri D.P. Gupta, filed their nomination papers for election of the Cantonment Board for Ward No.4. The nomination paper of Sri D.P. Gupta was rejected in the scrutiny and the nomination papers of others were found to be in order. Sri Virendra Kumar Shukla later on withdrew his candidature under Rule 21 of the Cantonments Electoral Rules, 1945. After polling the petitioner was declared elected for the membership of Ward No.4 of Lucknow Cantonment Board, Opposite Parties 2 and 3 fild an election petition (being Election Petition No.1 of 1992, Mohd. Khalid Qurreshi and another v. Raj Kumar Shukla and others) under Rule 42 of the Cantonment Electoral Rules, 1945 before the District Judge, Lucknow. The said election petition has now been transferred for disposal of 10th Additional District Judge, Lucknow, opposite party No.1. A notice was served on the petitioner who put in appearance before the opposite party No.1. Other opposite parties did not contest the petition. Besides other pleas the petitioner took a plea in para 21 of his written statement that Sri. Virendra Kumar Shukla who was also a candidate in the election in question, had not been impleaded in the present election petition and hence the election petition was not maintainable and be dismissed on that ground. An issue was also framed on this point and the 10th Additional District Judge, Lucknow decided this issue against the petitioner. Under the provisions of Rule 19 of the Cantonment Electoral Rules, 1945 Sri Virendra Kumar Shukla was a candidate as his name found place in the list of candidates in form VII drawn under the said Rule. Under the provisions of Section 82(1)(a) of the Representation of Peoples Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) a petitioner has to implead all the contesting candidates. Sub-section (b) of Section 82 of the Act provides for joining as respondents any other candidate against whom allegations of corrupt practice are made in the petition. The definition of the word 'candidate' as given in Section 79(b) of the Act has not been correctly appreciated by the Court below. Opposite party No.4 has contested the petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned, counsel for opposite party No.4 have been heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that non-impleadment of Virendra Kumar Singh in the election was fatal and the election petition was not maintainable while on the other hand learned counsel for the opposite party has argued that impleadment of Virendra Kumar Singh was not necessary in the present case as he had withdrawn from the election within the time permitted for withdrawal of the nomination.;