Narasimham, C.J.@mdashThese two writ applications were heard together as they deal with alleged irregularities said to haw been committed in holding elections to Bargarh Municipality, in September-October, 1963. Strangely enough, the candidates who were declared successful and whose interests would be vitally affected if the petitioners succeed in their writ applications, have not been made parties. On the other hand in paragraph 18 of the writ petitions the petitioners merely stated that "if the Court so desired" the successful candidates may be made parties and also gave a list of the successful candidates (in Schedule A). There can be no question of the Court "desiring" certain parties to be included as parties and it is the duty of the petitioner seeking relief before this Court to implead all the necessary parties. It is well settled that a writ of mandamus will not issue in the absence of parties who are likely to be affected by the decision of the Court--See
2. Mr. Das wanted further time to enable him to implead all the necessary parties after notice to them. We are not inclined to allow this prayer at this belated stage. No satisfactory reasons have been given for the failure of the petitioners to implead the parties when they filed their writ petitions.
3. This will suffice for the disposal of these 2 petitions, but as some other points dealing with irregularities in the holding of election have been urged, we would briefly notice them.
4. It appears that under the original programme of elections to the Bargarh Municipality the Election Officer was required to call for nominations from the wards on 3-9-1963, the nomination papers were to be filed on or before 14-9-1963, the date of scrutiny of nominations was fixed as 17-9-1963, and the date of publication of valid nomination was fixed as 20-9-1963. The affidavit of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bargarh, shows that this election programme, prepared by the District Magistrate and approved by Government, was duly published. There is some controversy about the exact date on which it was published. But as this is a disputed question of fact and the petitioners also in the petitions did not give the exact date on which the programme was published as required by Rule 20(1) of the Election Rules, we need not go into this question here. But it is admitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer that he subsequently changed the date of polling from 4-10-1963 to 5-10-1963 this change being notified to the public on 20-9-1963 when the list of valid nomination papers was published in Form X. Subsequently he obtained the approval of Government to the changed date of poll. The poll eventually took place on 5-10-1903.
5. Mr. Das contended that the fixation of the date of polling ought to have been made one month before the date of election for the purpose of Rule 22(1) of the Election Rules. According to him, the date of election would mean the date on which nominations were called for, i.e., 3-9-1963. Hence according to Mr. Das, the date of poll ought to have been fixed one month before that date and, as admitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, as the date of poll (5-10-1963) was fixed on 20-9-1963 there was contravention of the provisions of Rule 22(1). It is, however, unnecessary for us, to decide in this writ application, the correctness of this contention, in view of our holding that they arc not maintainable on account of the failure to implead the necessary parties.
6. The applications are dismissed, but there will be no order for costs.
Misra, J.
7. I agree.
