The High Court took the view that Harbhajan Singh and Kaushal fell within the purview of Sub section b of Section 82 for they had been candidates at the said election before they withdrew their candidature and allegations of companyrupt practice had been made against them in the election petition.
On the objection of the first respondent that the allegations in the petition were vague, the petition was amended and in the amended petition, with reference to one of the grounds, namely, the offering of bribes to voters, the appellant gave instances of bribes having been offered or paid by the first respondent, his election agents, and others.
A petitioner shall join as respondent to his petition a where the petitioner, in addition to claiming a declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself of any other candidate has been duly elected, all the companytesting candidates other than the petitioner, and where numbersuch further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates and b any other candidate against whom allegations of any companyrupt practice are made in the petition.
The High Court, basing itself upon the provisions of Section 82 of the Act, came to the companyclusion that the election petition was number maintainable and dismissed it.
In the election petition, the appellant averred that the aforesaid companyrupt practices had been companymitted by the first respondent and Harbhajan Singh, his son, who was his election agent also, by one Amarnath Kaushal, who was the companynting agent of the first respondent.
This is an appeal by an unsuccessful candidate who then filed an election petition before the High Court of Himachal Pradcsh.
The election was to the 11 Doon Assembly Constituency of the State of Himachal Pradesh.
Both Harbhajan Singh and Amarnath Kaushal had been candidates at the election but had withdrawn their candidature.
One of them was one of the candidates who had withdrawn his candidature and had number been impleaded as a party to the election petition.
Two persons were referred to as the election agents of the first respondent.
Section 82 reads thus Parties to the petition.
They were number impleaded as respondents to the election petition.
The first respondent was the successful candidate.
