IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13884 of 2007 DHARMBIR KUMAR,son of Sri Surendra Rai, resident of village- Kanchanpur, P.O. Kanchanpur, P.S. Bidupur, District- Vaishali. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Bihar State Election Commissioner, Sone Bhawan,Patna. 3. The District Election Officer-cum- Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur 4. The Election Officer-cum- Block Development Officer, Block Bidupur, District- Vaishali. 5. Bhadai Paswan, son of Ganga Sagar Paswan, resident of village- Kanchanpur, P.O. Kanchanpur, P.S.Vidupur, District Vaishali. … Plaintiff.. Respondent IInd Party. 6. Ram Murti Prasad, son of late Kapildeo Chawdhary, resident of village Mohanpur, P.S. Kanchanpur Block- Kanchanpur, P.S. Vidupur, District- Vaishali. 7. Kali Devi, wife of Ramji Singh 8. Vijay Kumar Singh, son of Singeshwar Singh. Both residents of village Chak Kanchanpur. P.O. Kanchanpur, P.S. Vidupur, District- Vaishali. 9. Gotam Kumar Singh, son of late Sarjug Prasad Singh 10. Chaudhary Virchand Bahadur, son of late Rama Nand Prasad Choudhary. 11.Sunil Kumar, son of Ram Kishun Rai. 12.Ramesh Prasad Choudhary, son of Ram Narayan Choudhary. 13.Laxami Rai, son of Mahabir Rai. 14.Lal Babu Singh, son of late Kuldip Rai 15.Indu Devi, wife of Raj Kumar Singh. 16.Vishwanath Rai, son of Ram Narain Guruji 17.Braj Nandan Rai son of Sukhu Rai 18.Satendra Rai, son of Sampairay Prasad Choudhary. All residents of village- Kanchanpur, P.o.Kanchanpur, P.S. Vidupur, District- Vaishali. … … Defendant Ist Party..Respondent III Party --- For the petitioner: Mr.Ramadhar Singh, Advocate For Respondent Nos.5 & 11: Mr.Surendra Kishore Thakur, Advocate For the State: Mr.Jainendra Kumar Sinha,J.C.to G.A.10 For Election Commission: Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh,Advocate --- 4. 11.2.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 11 and learned counsels for the State and the State Election Commission. Despite service of notices, the other respondents have not entered appearance. The writ application has been filed for quashing the 2 order dated 23.7.2007 passed by the Munsif, Vaishali at Hajipur in Election Case No.69 of 2006, by which he has transposed respondent Nos. 13 and 14 from the category of defendants to plaintiffs. The election petition was filed by respondent No.5, Bhadai Paswan, for setting aside the election of respondent No.6, Ram Murti Prasad, as Mukhiya of the Kanchanpur Gram Panchayat. After filing the written statements, an application was filed by respondent No. 6 that since the opposite party Nos. 9 and 10 had supported the stand of the election petitioner in their written statements, hence, they should be transposed as petitioners second party. The same was allowed by the learned Election Tribunal. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for respondent No.5- election petitioner is that no such application for transposition had been filed either by the election petitioner or by the said opposite party Nos. 9 and 10 in the election petition and thus, there was no justification for ordering the transposition of parties. It is submitted that the whole game of the winning candidate, respondent No.6, is to delay the matter by such tactics and he has succeeded in the same. This Court is in agreement with the submission of learned counsels for the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 and 11 that merely because the opposite party Nos. 9 and 10 had also supported certain issues raised by the election petitioner, it does not lead to a situation where they ought to have been transposed as election petitioners that too on the application of a third person when neither 3 the election petitioner nor the said party had made any such prayer. The provision for adding a person as party to the election petition is provided under Section 137 (2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, which is quoted below: “137 (2) Partities to the petition- A petitioner shall join as a 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 or any other candidates has been duly elected, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner, and where no such further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates; and (b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition.” Rule 106 (2) of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006 is also exactly in the same terms. Rule 106 (1) further provides that the election petition has to be filed within 30 days of the declaration of the result. In view of the aforesaid provisions of Section 137 (2) and Rule 106 (2) of the Rules, as laid down therein, the election petitioner has to join all the contesting candidates as a respondent where he claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected and there can be no question of the Election Tribunal acting contrary to the said statutory provisions and directing transposition of any such respondent as petitioner to the election petition when he himself has not chosen to file an election petition within the mandatory period of 30 days under the Act. Hence, the order dated 23.7.2007 of the learned Election Tribunal is contrary to the statutory provisions and cannot be permitted to stand. 4 It is, accordingly, set aside. The writ application is thus allowed. The learned Munsif is directed to proceed in the matter expeditiously so as to dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)