JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner - Gotan Lime Stone Khanij Udyog Pvt. Ltd. ('Gotan Lime') with the following prayer :- "Prayer It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this writ petition and :- (i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned notice dated 21.4.2014 (An-16) issued by the respondent no.2 may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed; (ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 16.12.2014 (An-22) passed by the respondent no.2 may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed with all consequential directions; (iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the memo dated 16.12.2014 (An-23) taking possession of the leased area of mining lease no.45/93 be declared illegal and be quashed and the respondents be directed to allow the mining operations by the petitioner which the petitioner was undertaking prior to the passing of the order dated 16.12.2014; (iv) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be restrained from interfering with the mining activities of the petitioner company in respect of the mining rights acquired from the partnership firm; (v) any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner; (vi) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner." 2. By the impugned order dated 16.12.2014 (Annex.22), the respondent Joint Secretary, Mining Department while deciding the show cause notice dated 21.4.2014 (Annex.16) passed the following order :- ^^dEiuh }kjk izLrqr mŸkj fnukad 04-06-2014 i'pkr~orhZ lksp gksus ,oa larks"ktud ugha gksus ls Lohdkj ;ksX; ugha gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa yafcr ;kfpdk la[;k 404@2013 esa foHkkx dh vksj ls la'kksf/kr mŸkj izLrqr fd;s tkus ,oa dEiuh }kjk ,e0,e0lh0vkj0] 1986 ds fu;e 15 dh vOkgsyuk fd;k tkuk Li"V gksus ls mDr [kuu iV~Vk gLrkarj.k vksn'k fnukad 25-04-2012 dks ,e0,e0lh0vkj0] 1986 ds fu;e 72 ds rgr ,rn~}kjk 'kwU; ?kksf"kr dj [kuu iV~Vk [kf.Mr fd;k tkrk gSA^^ 3. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 16.12.2014 (Annex.22) and consequential steps taken by the State, the present petition has been filed. 4. By order dated 18.12.2014 passed by this Court notices were ordered to be issued to the respondents and interim order was passed. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 16.12.2014 (Annex.22) and consequential steps taken by the State, the present petition has been filed. 4. By order dated 18.12.2014 passed by this Court notices were ordered to be issued to the respondents and interim order was passed. 5. The applicant - JK Cement Limited ('JK Cement') has filed application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Order I, Rule 10(2) & Section 151 CPC for being impleaded as party respondent. It is inter-alia claimed in the application that impleadment of applicant is necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the writ petition; the petitioner has assailed order dated 16.12.2014 passed by the respondents whereby the order dated 25.4.2012 passed by the State Government permitting the transfer of ML No.45/93 has been cancelled, the order dated 16.12.2014 relies on the supplementary reply filed by the mining department in pending S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.404/2013 ('WP 404/13'), which has been filed by the applicant; the WP 404/13 is still pending wherein the applicant has assailed the order of transfer dated 25.4.2012; by order dated 16.12.2014 (Annex.22) the order dated 25.4.2012 has been quashed, which in fact, upholds the challenge/allegations made by the applicant in WP 404/13; any order passed in the present writ petition, impacting the order dated 16.12.2014 will have direct and serious consequences for the applicant in WP 404/13 and therefore, it is necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be heard in the present writ petition as the applicant is both a proper and necessary party. Ultimately, it is prayed that the applicant be impleaded as a party respondent and be heard in the writ petition. 6. A reply to the application has been filed by the petitioner - Gotan Lime vehemently opposing the application filed by the applicant - JK Cement. It is inter-alia contended that the applicant is neither a necessary nor a proper party; the order impugned has been passed by the State Government and it is for the State Government to defend the said order; impleadment of the applicant will result in enlarging the scope of the writ petition and therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed. 7. It is inter-alia contended that the applicant is neither a necessary nor a proper party; the order impugned has been passed by the State Government and it is for the State Government to defend the said order; impleadment of the applicant will result in enlarging the scope of the writ petition and therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed. 7. It is further submitted that the State had filed a reply in WP 404/13 and has categorically affirmed the legality of the order dated 25.4.2012; lis in the present writ petition is between the petitioner and the State Government and the applicant has no say in the matter. 8. Further allegations have been made questioning the locus standi of the applicant to even maintain WP 404/13 and it is inter-alia contended that a detailed reply to the WP 404/13 has been filed and merely because a prayer has been made in the said writ petition for quashing of order dated 25.4.2012, the same does not make the applicant either necessary or proper party to the present writ petition. The complainant has no locus standi to intermeddle in the matter; the petitioner has raised strong objections regarding the right of applicant even to maintain WP 404/13 and therefore, the application was liable to be dismissed. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant reiterated the submissions made in the application and took the Court through WP 404/13, which was incidentally listed before the Court when the application was heard. Several submissions were made seeking to question the validity of order dated 25.4.2012 challenged in WP 404/13 and which came to be set-aside by order dated 16.12.2014 (Annex.22 in the present writ petition). 10. It was submitted that admittedly, the challenge laid by the applicant to order dated 25.4.2012 is pending consideration in WP 404/13 and as now the said order has been annulled/set-aside by the State Government, which has been questioned by the petitioner in the present writ petition, wherein if the validity of order dated 25.4.2012 is upheld by this Court while adjudicating the validity of order dated 16.12.2014, the cause of the applicant raised in WP 404/13 would be rendered infructuous without even hearing it and therefore, the applicant is a necessary party. 11. Reliance was placed on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding impleadment of parties in Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. 11. Reliance was placed on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding impleadment of parties in Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. : AIR 2012 SC 2925 , Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation, Greater Bombay : 1992(2) SCC 524 & Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders and Investors P. Ltd. and Ors. : AIR 2013 SC 2389 . 12. Vehemently opposing the prayer made by the applicant, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that not only in the present writ petition, even in WP 404/13, the applicant has no locus standi to question the validity of order dated 25.4.2012 and/or supporting the order dated 16.12.2014 (Annex.22). 13. Learned counsel also took the Court through the various objections raised by the petitioner as respondent in WP 404/13 questioning the locus standi and alleged suppressions made by the applicant. It was contended that for examining the validity of impugned order passed by the State Government, presence of the applicant is not necessary; the applicant is neither a complainant nor any averment qua the applicant has been made in the writ petition; the applicant is not affected by the decision in the present writ petition and as the lis is squarely between the petitioner and the State, the applicant cannot be permitted to enlarge the scope of the present writ petition permitting him to be impleaded as a party. 14. Reliance was placed on Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and others : (2005) 6 SCC 733 , Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited and others : (2010) 7 SCC 417 , Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad and others : (2012) 4 SCC 407 , and Shiva Corporation India Limited v. Devdashrath Royalties & Ors. : RLW 2013(1) Raj. 685. 15. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 16. It would be appropriate to consider the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments cited by learned counsel for the parties. 17. In Vidur Impex and Traders (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down broad principles, which should govern disposal of the application for impleadment as under :- "36. 16. It would be appropriate to consider the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments cited by learned counsel for the parties. 17. In Vidur Impex and Traders (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down broad principles, which should govern disposal of the application for impleadment as under :- "36. Though there is apparent conflict in the observations made in some of the aforementioned judgments, the broad principles which should govern disposal of an application for impleadment are: 1. The Court can, at any stage of the proceedings, either on an application made by the parties or otherwise, direct impleadment of any person as party, who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before the Court is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. 2. A necessary party is the person who ought to be joined as party to the suit and in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed by the Court. 3. A proper party is a person whose presence would enable the Court to completely, effectively and properly adjudicate upon all matters and issues, though he may not be a person in favour of or against whom a decree is to be made. 4. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the Court does not have the jurisdiction to order his impleadment against the wishes of the plaintiff. 5. In a suit for specific performance, the Court can order impleadment of a purchaser whose conduct is above board, and who files application for being joined as party within reasonable time of his acquiring knowledge about the pending litigation. 6. However, if the applicant is guilty of contumacious conduct or is beneficiary of a clandestine transaction or a transaction made by the owner of the suit property in violation of the restraint order passed by the Court or the application is unduly delayed then the Court will be fully justified in declining the prayer for impleadment." 18. In Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that addition of parties is a question of judicial discretion, which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case, it was observed as under:- "6. In Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that addition of parties is a question of judicial discretion, which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case, it was observed as under:- "6. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 gives a wide discretion to the Court to meet every case of defect of parties and is not affected by the inaction of the plaintiff to bring the necessary parties on record. The question of impleadment of a party has to be decided on the touch stone of Order 1, Rule 10 which provides that only a necessary or a proper party may be added. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively. A proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding. The addition of parties is generally not a question of initial jurisdiction of the Court but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case. 14. It cannot be said that the main object of the rule is to prevent multiplicity of actions though it may incidentally have that effect. But that appears to be a desirable consequence of the rule rather than its main objectives. The person to be joined must be one whose presence is necessary as a party. What makes a person a necessary party is not merely that he has relevant evidence to give on some of the questions involved; that would only make him a necessary witness. It is not merely that he has an interest in the correct solution of some question involved and has thought of relevant arguments to advance. The only reason which makes it necessary to make a person a party to an action is so that he should be bound by the result of the action and the question to be settled, therefore, must be a question in the action which cannot be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party. The line has been drawn on a wider construction of the rule between the direct interest or the legal interest and commercial interest. The line has been drawn on a wider construction of the rule between the direct interest or the legal interest and commercial interest. It is, therefore, necessary that the person must be directly or legally interested in the action in the answer, i.e., he can say that the litigation may lead to a result which will affect him legally that is by curtailing his legal rights. It is difficult to say that the rule contemplates joining as a defendant a person whose only object is to prosecute his own cause of action. Similar provision was considered in Amon v. Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd., (1956) 1 All ER 273, wherein after quoting the observations of Wynn-Parry, J. in Dollfus Mieget Compagnie S.A. v. Bank of England, (1950) 2 All ER 605, 611, that the true test lies not so much in an analysis of what are the constituents of the applicants' rights, but rather in what would be the result on the subject matter of the action if those rights could be established, Devlin, J. has stated :- "The test is 'May the order for which the plaintiff is asking directly affect the intervener in the enjoyment of his legal rights." 19. Further in Thomson Press (supra), the principles laid down in Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal were reiterated. 20. In Kasturi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the aspect of necessary party, in a suit for specific performance, held and observed as under:- "16. That apart, from a plain reading of the expression used in sub-rule (2) Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC "all the questions involved in the suit" it is abundantly clear that the legislature clearly meant that the controversies raised as between the parties to the litigation must be gone into only, that is to say, controversies with regard to the right which is set up and the relief claimed on one side and denied on the other and not the controversies which may arise between the plaintiff-appellant and the defendants inter se or questions between the parties to the suit and a third party. In our view, therefore, the court cannot allow adjudication of collateral matters so as to convert a suit for specific performance of contract for sale into a complicated suit for title between the plaintiff-appellant on one hand and Respondents 2 and 3 and Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 on the other. This addition, if allowed, would lead to a complicated litigation by which the trial and decision of serious questions which are totally outside the scope of the suit would have to be gone into. As the decree of a suit for specific performance of the contract for sale, if passed, cannot, at all, affect the right, title and interest of the Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 in respect of the contracted property and in view of the detailed discussion made herein earlier, the Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 would not, at all, be necessary to be added in the instant suit for specific performance of the contract for sale." 21. In Mumbai International Airport (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while reiterating the principles laid down in Kasturi (supra) and Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal (supra) inter alia observed as under:- "15. A "necessary party" is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. If a "necessary party" is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A "proper party" is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in disputes in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of the plaintiff. The fact that a person is likely to secure a right/interest in a suit property, after the suit is decided against the plaintiff, will not make such person a necessary party or a proper party to the suit for specific performance. 22. Let us consider the scope and ambit of Order 1 of Rule 10(2) CPC regarding striking out or adding parties. 22. Let us consider the scope and ambit of Order 1 of Rule 10(2) CPC regarding striking out or adding parties. The said sub-rule is not about the right of a non-party to be impleaded as a party, but about the judicial discretion of the court to strike out or add parties at any stage of a proceeding. The discretion under the sub-rule can be exercised either suo motu or on the application of the plaintiff or the defendant, or on an application of a person who is not a party to the suit. The court can strike out any party who is improperly joined. The court can add anyone as a plaintiff or as a defendant if it finds that he is a necessary party or proper party. Such deletion or addition can be without any conditions or subject to such terms as the court deems fit to impose. In exercising its judicial discretion under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Code, the court will of course act according to reason and fair play and not according to whims and caprice. 25. In other words, the court has the discretion to either to allow or reject an application of a person claiming to be a proper party, depending upon the facts and circumstances and no person has a right to insist that he should be impleaded as a party, merely because he is a proper party." 22. In Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering a matter pertaining to the dis-qualification of a President of Municipal Council observed as under:- 58. Shri Chintaman Raghunath Gharat, ex-President was the complainant, thus, at the most, he could lead the evidence as a witness. He could not claim the status of an adversarial litigant. The complainant cannot be the party to the lis. A legal right is an averment of entitlement arising out of law. In fact, it is a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. Thus, a person who suffers from legal injury can only challenge the act or omission. There may be some harm or loss that may not be wrongful in the eye of law because it may not result in injury to a legal right or legally protected interest of the complainant but juridically harm of this description is called damnum sine injuria." 59. There may be some harm or loss that may not be wrongful in the eye of law because it may not result in injury to a legal right or legally protected interest of the complainant but juridically harm of this description is called damnum sine injuria." 59. The complainant has to establish that he has been deprived of or denied of a legal right and he has sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In case he has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on, he cannot be heard as a party in a lis. A fanciful or sentimental grievance may not be sufficient to confer a locus standi to sue upon the individual. There must be injuria or a legal grievance which can be appreciated and not a state pro ratione voluntas reasons i.e. a claim devoid of reasons." 23. So far as the judgment in the case of Shiva Corporation India Limited (supra) relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the same essentially deals with 'person aggrieved' and the principles pertaining to person aggrieved cannot be equated with a necessary/proper party and as such, the judgment has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present application. 24. The sum and substance of various judgments cited by both the learned counsel for the parties as noticed hereinbefore is that it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case as to whether a party can claim itself to be a necessary and/or a proper party to a pending lis. Nobody can claim a indefensible right to be impleaded as party in any pending litigation. 25. The distinction between necessary and proper party as laid down in the case of Mumbai International Airport (supra) is that a party in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the Court is a necessary party, while a proper party is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the lis, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. 26. 26. Coming to the present application filed by the applicant, it is not in dispute that the order dated 25.4.2012 whereby the transfer of ML No.45/93 was granted has been questioned by the applicant - JK Cement in WP 404/13, wherein the State justified the transfer and the petitioner - Gotan Lime also obviously supported the said action and additionally questioned the locus standi of JK Cement to question the validity of order dated 25.4.2012 and the maintainability of the writ petition on several counts. The WP 404/13 is pending consideration at admission stage before this Court, in the meanwhile, after filing a supplementary affidavit in WP 404/13 though praying for dismissal of WP 404/13, the order dated 25.4.2012 impugned in WP 404/13 came to be annulled/set-aside by the State and additionally the lease in favour of the petitioner was also cancelled. 27. A look at the entire writ petition as filed by the petitioner reveals that the petitioner has placed on record the writ petition filed by JK Cement, reply filed by the State, reply filed by the petitioner, rejoinder filed by JK cement, sir-rejoinder, supplementary reply, rejoinder filed by JK Cement, counter to supplementary reply and counter to rejoinder filed in WP 404/13 as part of the present writ petition and has relied on the said documents to indicate that the State had defended the order dated 25.4.2012 in WP 404/13. 28. Apparently, at this stage, in view of setting aside of order dated 25.4.2012 by order dated 16.12.2014, WP 404/13 filed by JK Cement has been rendered infructuous. However, as the order dated 16.12.2014 has been questioned in the present writ petition, apparently the lis pertaining to the validity of order dated 25.4.2012 has not come to an end and the same is still continuing. 29. It would be seen that in the order dated 16.12.2014 (Annex.22) it has been noticed that the petitioner has relied on the contents of reply filed by the State in WP 404/13 and the supplementary reply in WP 404/13 has been relied on for the purpose of passing of the order dated 16.12.2014. 30. 29. It would be seen that in the order dated 16.12.2014 (Annex.22) it has been noticed that the petitioner has relied on the contents of reply filed by the State in WP 404/13 and the supplementary reply in WP 404/13 has been relied on for the purpose of passing of the order dated 16.12.2014. 30. If in the present petition, based on the stand taken by the State in WP 404/13 a finding is returned by the Court on the validity of order dated 25.4.2012, the same would indirectly decide the lis in WP 404/13 as well and that also in absence of the applicant who is petitioner in WP 404/13. 31. The very fact that entire record of the writ petition filed by the applicant, which is still pending, is sought to be relied on by the petitioner in the present writ petition, it can safely be said that the applicant though not a necessary party, is in any case a proper party as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mumbai International Airport (supra) and Vidur Impex and Traders (supra). 32. So far as the issue of locus standi of the applicant in WP 404/13 as petitioner is concerned, while adjudicating the present application, the maintainability of WP 404/13 and/or the locus standi of the applicant to maintain the said writ petition cannot be determined. 33. So far as the apprehension expressed by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the enlargement of scope of the present writ petition is concerned, as admittedly while examining the legality and validity of the order dated 16.12.2014, the validity of order dated 25.4.2012 also would be determined in the context of prayer (iv) made by the petitioner seeking restraint against the respondents from interfering with the mining activities of the petitioner-Company in respect of 'mining rights acquired from the partnership firm', the apprehension is apparently misplaced. 34. In view of the above discussion, the application (IA 6/2015) filed by the applicant - JK Cement Limited under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Order I, Rule 10(2) & Section 151 CPC is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be impleaded as party respondent No.5 to the writ petition. 35. Amended cause title be filed by the petitioner. 36. The applicant is ordered to be impleaded as party respondent No.5 to the writ petition. 35. Amended cause title be filed by the petitioner. 36. A copy of the writ petition may be supplied to learned counsel for the respondent No.5, the reply to the writ petition, if any, be filed by 5.2.2015. Application allowed.