IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 1864 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 24.09.2010 Chhanga Singh ...Appellant Versus Smt. Beero and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. L.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondent No. 1. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Advocate for respondent No.2. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (Oral) C.M. Nos.9175 & 9177-CII of 2010 Applications are allowed as prayed for. C.M. No. 9178-CII of 2010 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 14 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. CM stands disposed of. F.A.O. No.1864 of 2010 This appeal is directed against the order passed by S.D.M.- cum-Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Phillaur, dated 25.09.2009 vide which the election petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the election petition by itself is not maintainable because the appellant has not impleaded all the contesting candidates because he had prayed for setting F.A.O. No. 1864 of 2010 -2- aside the election of respondent No.1 and had also prayed for fresh election. She submits that as per Section 77(a) of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (for short “the Act”), in case where election of returned candidate is challenged, all the contesting candidates have to be impleaded. She also submits that if there is any violation of Section 77 of the Act then under Section 80 of the Act, the Election Tribunal should have dismissed the election petition. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, submits that he was affected by the election of respondent No.1, therefore, he has rightly impleaded respondent No.2 as party and other candidates, who have contested the election in different categories are not required to be impleaded as respondents. I have heard both learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is now settled that the election petitioner is required to implead all the returned candidates in view of Sections 77 & 80 of the Act. Since in the present case, all the returned candidates have not been impleaded, so this election petition itself is not maintainable and as such, the present appeal is found to be without any merit and is dismissed. No costs. September 24, 2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) Gagan JUDGE