Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 124 (RAJ)

Rajesh Sharma v. Naresh Kumar

2021-01-18

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2021
JUDGMENT : Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 04.11.2020, passed by the Director Local Self Government, Rajasthan - respondent No. 8, whereby impleadment application filed by the respondent No. 6 - Chandu Lal and respondent No. 7 - Sanjay Jain has been allowed and they are impleaded as a party respondents in the Revision Petition filed under Section 327 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2009'). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Revision Petition filed under Section 327 of the Act of 2009 had challenged the decision dated 06.07.2020, passed by the Municipal Council, Beawar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC was filed on behalf of two applicants - Chandu Lal Kothari & Sanjay Jain and without even supplying the copy of the application, the impugned order has been passed by making these two applicants as party in the Revision Petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that perusal of the order dated 04.11.2020, shows that first application for impleadment was allowed and the matter was posted on 20.11.2020 and copy of the application was ordered to be furnished to the petitioner/their council and the matter was posted for further consideration of the Revision Petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if at all such application for impleadment was to be considered by impleading the applicants as party respondents in the revision petition, the minimum requirement of giving an opportunity and supplying copy of the application, was not complied with by the Officer concerned. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 04.11.2020 has taken valuable right of the petitioner to file objection about the impleadment and as such this Court needs to interfere in the present matter. 7. Learned counsel Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 6 & 7, submitted that no illegality has been committed in the impugned order. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner, who has filed the revision petition, has got an ex parte order dated 23.10.2020. 8. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents-applicants are necessary parties as their right is vitally affected due to interim order passed on 23.10.2020. 9. 6 & 7, submitted that no illegality has been committed in the impugned order. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner, who has filed the revision petition, has got an ex parte order dated 23.10.2020. 8. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents-applicants are necessary parties as their right is vitally affected due to interim order passed on 23.10.2020. 9. Learned counsel submitted that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner, if respondents-applicants have been allowed to be impleaded as a party. Learned counsel submitted that in fact revision petition itself was not maintainable as the necessary parties were not impleaded by the petitioner in their revision petition and as such no mistake has been committed by the Court below, while allowing the application. 10. Learned counsel further submitted that right of filing objections has already been granted by the respondent No. 8 and as such whatever objections petitioner may have about impleadment, he is always free to make such submissions, as ample opportunity is given to the petitioner. 11. Learned counsel further submitted that the subsequent order, which has been passed by the Officer-respondent No. 8, clearly reflects that the interim order dated 23.10.2020 is causing great prejudice to the petitioner and the petitioner has not been able to make use of land in question and lay out plan has already been approved by the Competent Authority and as such the respondents cannot be restrained to make use of the land in question, as per the relevant bylaws. 12. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. This Court finds that the order dated 04.11.2020 passed by the respondent No. 8, makes a mention for supplying copy of the application to the party i.e. Municipal Council, Beawar and other parties like petitioner and as such they have been given opportunity to raise objections and to argue the matter on the next date. 14. This Court finds that if the impleadment application was filed by the respondent Nos. 6 & 7, proper course should have been to supply copy of such application and if the respondent No. 8 thought it proper to implead respondent Nos. 6 & 7 as party respondents, he could have passed the same order, after giving proper opportunity to the revisionist or his counsel-petitioner. 15. 6 & 7, proper course should have been to supply copy of such application and if the respondent No. 8 thought it proper to implead respondent Nos. 6 & 7 as party respondents, he could have passed the same order, after giving proper opportunity to the revisionist or his counsel-petitioner. 15. This Court finds that the procedure, which has been adopted by the respondent No. 8 of allowing application does not meet the requirement of law as opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner and at least copy of the application of impleadment and opportunity to make submissions either orally or by filing a reply to such application ought to have given. The proper course would have been to supply a proper copy of the application of impleadment and then to pass order, as per relevant facts and law about impleadment of the party. 16. The submission made by learned counsel for the respondents that an ex-parte stay order dated 23.10.2020 is causing great prejudice to the respondents and the revision petition filed by the petitioner directly affects rights of the respondents, suffice it to say for this Court that if impleadment application is allowed after hearing both the sides, the parties are always free to file proper application and they can also make a request to the Authority to continue or vacate of the interim order dated 23.10.2020. 17. Accordingly, this Court finds that the order dated 04.11.2020 needs to be set aside. The respondent No. 8 will be free to proceed further in the matter after giving an opportunity to the petitioner or to the other parties to have a copy of the impleadment application and after affording an opportunity to them, appropriate orders may be passed on impleadment or non-impleadment of the respondent Nos. 6 & 7. 18. This Court further finds that if any application for vacation of interim order or continuation of stay order is to be considered by the respondent No. 8, the same can always be done by him, after giving an opportunity to both the parties. 19. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. It is expected from the respondent No. 8 that application for impleadment will be decided expeditiously and no unnecessary adjournment will be granted to any of the parties.