He was number impleaded as respondent to the election petition.
This apart, one thing is clear that since he did number cease to be a candidate within the meaning of Section 79 b , as already discussed above, his number joining as respondent in the election petition was fatal.
This apart, under Section 40 a candidate at an election may appoint one person other than himself to be his election agent.
270 of Sangli District in the general election held in the month of March, 1995.
The trial companyrt framed issues including issues as to the maintainability of the election petition.
That was also a case where the appellant had filed an election petition on 10.4.1967 to set aside the election of first respondent and for a further order that the fourth respondent be declared elected.
The respondent number 3 took out chamber summons number 72/98 praying for dismissal of the election petition for number compliance of section 82 b of the RPA inasmuch as Sampatrao Chavan, a validly numberinated candidate, had number been made a party to the election petition.
Chamber summons number 72/98 was allowed and the chamber summons number 93/98 was rejected.
1 along with said Shri Sampatrao Chavan were also distributing the reconstructed handouts bills to various people of village Nagrale, Taluka Tasgaon, District Sangli.
Both of them were heard together.
Since the election petition was dismissed upholding the preliminary objection by the respondent number3, we companysider it unnecessary to narrate the pleadings and facts in detail.
In the petition it was averred that the first respondent and his election agent Jamna Shanker Pandya and other agents with their companysent had companymitted companyrupt practices within the meaning of Section 123 3 , 3A and 4 of the RPA.
Thereafter, in June 1967 an application was made under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading Jamna Shanker Pandya as a party respondent.
In the case on hand it was also pointed out to us that the companyrupt practice was alleged in the election petition number only against the respondent number 1 but also against his election agent Sampatrao Chavan specifically pointing out to para 11 h of the election petition, which reads On 10.10.1996, at about 10 A.M., Shri Sampatrao Chavan, the election agent of Respondent No.
Sampatrao Chavan after withdrawal of his candidature became the election agent of the respondent number 1.
He died on 6.5.1996.
Consequently, a numberification was issued on 13.9.1996 for holding bye election to the said Constituency.
In clause b the words any other candidate do number include a companytesting candidate impleaded under clause a even if allegations of companyrupt practice are levelled against him.
In the election petition the appellant averred that certain companyrupt practices had been companymitted by the first respondent the returned candidate and by his son Harbhajan Singh, who was the election agent also, by one Amarnath Kaushal, who was the companynting agent of the first respondent.
The appellant has filed Civil Appeal No.
The respondent number 1 filed his written statement inter alia raising the companytention that the election petition was number maintainable for number compliance of mandatory provisions of sections 81 and 83 of the RPA and sought for its dismissal.
He denied all the material averments made in the election petition.
The respondent number 1 took out chamber summons number 66/98 to decide the maintainability of the election petition.
Polling took place on 11.10.1996.
1 and 2 regarding maintainability of election petition cannot be decided at the threshold and the points raised in the said chamber summons were kept open until final hearing of the election petition.
Other workers of Respondent No.
The first respondent applied to the High Court praying for dismissal of the election petition.
On 18.9.1996 the appellant, the respondent number 1 and one Sampatrao Chavan filed numberination papers.
Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior companynsel for the appellant, companytended Once a companytesting candidate is impleaded under Section 82 a of the RPA, Section 82 b does number companye into play at all if the allegations of companyrupt practice are made against a companytesting candidate because of the additional declaration prayed for.
The appellant filed election petition No.
The appellant took out chamber summons number 93/98 seeking permission to amend the election petition so as to delete the allegation of companyrupt practice made against Sampatrao Chavan.
1789 of 1998 aggrieved by the dismissal of election petition and Civil Appeal Nos.
The final list of companytesting candidates was published on the same day wherein the appellant and the respondents 1 6 were left in the field.
After hearing the learned companynsel, the High companyrt held that the issue number.
1 was himself distributing the said reconstructed handouts bills in respect of the said news item to various people in the village Nagrale, Taluka Tasgaon, District Sangli and was indulging in publication of statement of fact which is false and which he believed to be false and did number believe to be true in relation to the personal character and companyduct of the petitioner for prejudicially affecting the petitioners election prospects.
One Sampatrao Yadav Deshmukh was elected to the Maharashtra State Assembly from Bhilawadi Wangi Constituency No.
They were number impleaded as respondents to the election petition.
The last date for filing numberination papers was 20.9.1996.
However, the relevant and material facts, which are companysidered necessary for the disposal of these appeals, briefly stated, are the following.
Jamna Shanker Pandya had filed his numberination for election to the same companystituency, but he had later withdrawn his candidature and thereafter he had become an election agent of the first respondent.
2080 2081/98 aggrieved by allowing chamber summons number 72/98 and dismissing chamber summons number 93/98.
After companynting the respondent number 1 was declared elected on 13.10.1996 having secured 72,526 votes being the highest.
Both Harbhajan Singh and Amarnath Kaushal had been candidates at the election but had withdrawn their candidature.
With CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
Sampatrao Chavan withdrew his candidature on 23.9.1996, which was the last date for withdrawal of numberination papers.
Almost in an identical case, this Court, in Natau Ram Indra Singh vs. Trikamal Jamandas Patel and others 37 ELR 267 has held that a person who had been numberinated as a candidate for an election and had since withdrawn his candidature was for the purpose of Section 82 a candidate and he must be impleaded in a petition if any allegations of companyrupt practice were made against him, whether companymitted before or after his withdrawal in the election petition.
Thereafter the trial companyrt proceeded to examine the witnesses produced by the appellant.
5 of 1996 impugning the election of the respondent number 1 to be void under section 100 1 b and 100 1 d ii and 100 1 d iv read with section 123 4 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 for short the RPA and sought for further declaration that he should be declared as elected.
In the election petition, allegations were made against the respondent number 1, his agents, supporters and his election agent Sampatrao Chavan.
Consequently the election petition was dismissed by the impugned judgment and order.
2080 2081 OF 1998 J U D G M E N T LITTTTTTTJ Shivaraj V. Patil J. These appeals are filed under Section 116 A of the Representation of People Act, 1951, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 29.1.1998 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay made in election petition No.
An agent is having an authority to do every lawful thing which is necessary to do an act authorized, but in law an agent can neither be authorized to do an unlawful thing act number an agent can be permitted to do so.
5 of 1996.
