JUDGMENT 1. - By an application being I.A. No. 4061/2008, applicant Hanja Ram seeks to implead as party respondent in the writ petition filed by petitioner Karmi Ram Purohit. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Additional Govt. Counsel. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the petitioner who was holding the post of Sarpanch was caught red handed while accepting illegal gratification and inquiry has been initiated against him and on initiation of inquiry, he has been suspended by the order of the State Govt. Since the initiation of the inquiry is at the instance of the applicant-complainant, therefore, he is necessary party to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on a Single Bench decision of this Court in Bhan Singh and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2599/04 decided on 12.1.2007 and submitted that an appeal preferred against the said decision came to be 1 dismissed by the Division Bench, however, he failed to show the decision of Division Bench. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the applicant is neither necessary nor a proper party to the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order suspending him. He has relied on a decision of this i Court in Ramji Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., 1985 RLR 644 and two Division Bench decisions in Surendra Kumar Garg and Others v. The State of Rajasthan and Others, 2005 (1) RLW Raj. 478 and in Virendra Modi v. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 573/02 decided on 11.9.2002 . 5. In Ramji Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra), the writ petition filed by the petitioner therein was Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and was placed under suspension by the State Govt. The order suspending the Sarpanch petitioner therein came to be challenged and in that case, the complainants moved an application seeking impleadment on the ground that they made a complaint against the petitioner therein and on the basis of said complaint, a preliminary inquiry was held and impugned order of suspension was passed therein. This Court held that so far as the present proceedings are concerned, the necessary and proper party can only be State Govt. which has passed the order suspending the petitioner therein. This Court held that so far as the present proceedings are concerned, the necessary and proper party can only be State Govt. which has passed the order suspending the petitioner therein. The applicants can neither be regarded as necessary parties nor they could be regarded as proper parties. This view was reiterated by the two Division Bench decisions referred herein above. 6. In Virendra Modi v. State of Rajasthan (supra), Division Bench of this Court held that as far as for impleadment of the complainant in the present litigation is concerned, he cannot be considered as a necessary or proper party. His complaint having already been dealt with by the State Government and the action having been taken by the State. The matter now remains between the State Government and the appellant and the complainant cannot be allowed to be prosecutor in the case so far as the subject matter relates to the question of his continuity as elected member in the office is concerned. 7. In Surendra Kumar Garg and Others v. The State of Rajasthan and Others (supra), Division Bench of this Court held that so far as the ground of locus standi is concerned, it may be mentioned that once the complaint is made, the business of the complainant is over. He is no more person to make any interference as the complaint is the subject matter of enquiry between the party concerned and the Government and no one has a right to make an interference. The complainant is only an informer and the business has been completed by the appellants, while making complaint against the respondent No. 3 and they have no interest left in the matter to get acquaintance with the further development of the proceedings. 8. Keeping in view the two Division Bench decisions in Virendra Modi v. State of Rajasthan (supra) and in Surendra Kumar Garg and Others v. The State of Rajasthan and Others (supra) as also the decision in Ramji Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra), in my view, the applicant is neither necessary nor a proper party to the writ petition challenging the order suspending the writ petitioner. 9. The application being I.A. No. 4061/2008 filed by applicant Hanja Ram is therefore devoid of any merit and as such it is dismissed.List. the matter in the next week for admission.Application For Impleadment Dismissed. *******