CA16-10 (1) agk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPLICATION NO.16 OF 2010 IN ELECTION PETITION NO.1 OF 2009 Mahendra B. Warbhuvan & Anr .. Applicants versus Indur Kartar Chhugani & Anr .. Respondents Mr.D.A.Nalawade, Govt.Pleader with Mr.R.A.Lokhande, A.G.P for the applicants. Mr.I.K.Chhugani, respondent No.1 in person. Mr.Swanand R. Ganoo i/by Kanga & Co for respondent No.2. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 16th September 2010. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicants in this application who are respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the election petition. I have heard the respondent in this application who is the petitioner in election petition. 2 The prayer in this application is for deleting the 1st respondent in the election petition (Returning Officer) and the 2nd respondent (Chief Election CA16-10 (2) Commissioner of India). Reliance has been placed on decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Jyoti Basu & Ors Vs. Debi Ghosal & Ors (AIR 1982 S.C 983) and B.Sundara Rami Reddy Vs. Election Commission of India & Ors [1991 Supp (2) S.C.C 624]. Reliance is also placed on judgment and order dated 27th November 2009 passed by this Court in Chamber Summons No. 1669 of 2009 in Election Petition No.6 of 2009. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that in view of the settled law, the 1st and 2nd respondents in the election petition could not have been impleaded as parties. 3 The petitioner in election petition appearing in person states that he is neither supporting nor opposing the application. However, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Makhan Lal Bangal Vs. Manas Bhunia & Ors [(2001) 2 S.C.C 652]. He relied upon a decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Dadi Veerahadra Rao Vs. Returning Officer (AIR 2005 Andhra Pradesh 428). He also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Narender Singh Vs. Mala Ram & Anr [(1999) 8 S.C.C 198]. He submitted that a different view has been taken in the said decisions. He submitted that the application is belatedly filed by the 1st and 2nd respondents in the election petition after participating in the CA16-10 (3) trial. 4 The settled law on this subject which is reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of B.Sundara Rami Reddy (supra) is that only those persons can be impleaded as respondents to an election petition who are mentioned in section 82 and section 86(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and no others. What has been held by the Apex Court is that in a given case even though it may appear desirable and expedient to join other persons who are not mentioned in the section 82 and section 86(4), they cannot be joined as respondents. Therefore, the fact that there is delay in filing this application will not make any difference. As far as the decisions relied upon by the petitioner in person are concerned, the case of Makhan Lal Bangal (supra) arises in a case where finding corrupt of practice was recorded by the High Court against the persons who were not before the Court. The decision in the case of Narender Singh (supra) does not make departure from the settled law. In view of the binding precedent of the Apex Court, the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Dadi Veerahadra Rao (supra) cannot be taken into consideration. In the present case there are no allegations of corrupt practices against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the election petition. In the circumstances, Application No.16 of 2010 must CA16-10 (4) succeed and the same is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from today. (A.S.OKA, J)