JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan, C. J.,—In our order dated 16-9-1996, we had directed respondents No 1 to 3 to produce all the relevant records in support of the statement contained in their reply filed earlier in this Court that the fifth respondent had agreed to repay the amount with interest thereon. 2. Now, it is represented by Mr M, S Guleria3 Deputy Advocate General, that there is no such record and the statement contained in the reply was based upon the assurance given by the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, who is no more. The Counsel made this statement in this Court on the basis of instructions given to him by Deputy Secretary (Panchayats) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Mr. B K, Sharma The said. Mr B, K Sharma is present in the Court and he admits before us that it was a mistake committed by him when the reply was filed in this Court to the effect that the fifth respondent is ready to repay the amount to petitioners 1 to 4, We are of the opinion that the Court ought not to have been misled by the respondents by making such a categorical statement in the reply filed by them. The respondents ought to have stated fully the facts as now reported by them that the assurance was given by the then Secretary of the Grain Panchayat. who is no more. In view of this fact, we told the Deputy Secretary (Panchayats), who is present in the Court that an action would be taken under contempt unless he expressed an apology. On that the said Deputy Secretary expressed in the Court orally an unconditional apology and we accept that apology and drop the proceedings. Now, we proceed to dispose of the writ petition on its merits. 3. The fifth respondent has filed the reply, in which it is stated that the Panchayat is prepared to pay the principal amount on condition that the shops are handed over to the Panchayat and the time for payment of said principal amount is fixed as six months. Now, we proceed to dispose of the writ petition on its merits. 3. The fifth respondent has filed the reply, in which it is stated that the Panchayat is prepared to pay the principal amount on condition that the shops are handed over to the Panchayat and the time for payment of said principal amount is fixed as six months. It has been stated in the reply that the shops have not been opened and they are under lock and key of the District Panchayat Officer and not having been handed over to the said respondent, which has not been able to derive an income from the shops till now, It is also stated that the Panchayat has not got sufficient funds and the funds could be raised only if the shops are given to the other persons on lease after following due procedure of auction etc. 4. On the basis of the said statement, the petitioners counsel represents that his clients are willing to accept the principal amount with liberty to proceed against the concerned persons for recovery of the balance, whatever it may be, by taking appropriate proceedings against them. 5. Hence the following order is passed 6. The fifth respondent shall pay the principal amount of Rs, 1,05,000 to petitioners 1, 2 and 4 within six months from this date, that is, on condition that shops in question are handed over to the fifth respondent within three weeks from this date. It is open to the fifth respondent to adopt the proper procedure as prescribed by law to lease out the shops and on collection of the requisite amount they shall make payment of the principal amount, as aforesaid, to petitioners No. 1, 2 and 4 7. If the said amount is not paid to petitioners 1, 2 and 4 within six months from this date, the fifth respondent shall also be liable to pay interest on the said amount at the market rate from the date of expiry of six months. It is open to petitioners 1, 2 and 4 to take appropriate proceedings for recovery of said interest also along with the other amounts paid to be due to them. 8. The fourth respondent in this writ petition is a former Minister of the State. We find absolutely no allegation as against him in the writ petition. It is open to petitioners 1, 2 and 4 to take appropriate proceedings for recovery of said interest also along with the other amounts paid to be due to them. 8. The fourth respondent in this writ petition is a former Minister of the State. We find absolutely no allegation as against him in the writ petition. He ought not to have been impleaded as party in this writ petition. He has been unnecessarily dragged to this Court, We are constrained to point out that the petitioners, who approach this Court, shall see to it that only necessary parties are impleaded in the writ petition and parties against whom allegations are not made should not be impleaded as such. In fact when elected representatives of the people are impleaded as party, the petitioners in such cases should take care to make specific allegations, if the facts warrant the same, against such persons, without which the writ petitions will not be maintainable. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. M. P. No. 1867 of 1995 : In view of the disposal of the writ petition, the present application is also disposed of and the interim order dated 11-7-1995 is vacated. Dasti copy. Order accordingly.