Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2292 (RAJ)

Jagdish Prasad Meena v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-08-24

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The matter comes up on an application (1/2022) filed by the applicants-S/Shri Shyoji Ram Gurjar & Kamlesh Meena seeking their impleadment as respondents in the instant writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that since the orders under challenge in the writ petition have been issued on their complaint, they are necessary parties and hence, they may be impleaded accordingly. 3. Opposing the prayer, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, an ex Sarpanch, has assailed the orders dated 07.06.2022 & 09.05.2022 passed by the official respondents and it being a lis between him and the respondents, applicants are neither necessary nor proper parties. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the application. 4. Heard. Considered. 5. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court has, in the case of Smt. Vimla Vyas v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: AIR 2009 Rajasthan 109, held as under: "24. The charge of the office of the Chairperson of the said Municipal Board came in the hands of the applicant Smt. Shakuntala Singhvi for the fortuitous circumstances that the State Government chose to remove the petitioner from such office and then, chose to nominate the applicant as the person to hold such charge as per the requirements of Section 69-A of the Act of 1959. There was no legal right otherwise existing in the applicant to hold the charge of the office of the Chairperson of the said Municipal Board nor any additional right came vesting in her because of being nominated by the State Government to hold the charge. The said applicant, not having any direct right so as to litigate against the petitioner so far subject matter of this writ petition is concerned cannot be acceded a right to join this writ petition. 25. The prayer for quashing of the order dated 26.12.2007 (Annex.14), whereby the applicant was nominated to hold the charge, is only a consequential relief that seems to have been incorporated so as to complete the frame of the petition and else, this Court is clearly of opinion that even if the said order Annexure-14 is not challenged nor anything is pronounced thereupon, the petitioner is very much entitled yet to question the legality of the order Annexure-12 as passed against her. 26. 26. The basic and the core questions in this writ petition are related to the validity and legality of the order of removal of the petitioner; and that is essentially a matter between the petitioner and the State Government. The presence of the applicant does not appear necessary for effectual and complete adjudication of the questions involved in this writ petition and she cannot be said to be a necessary party at all. As pointed out above, the applicant came to be handed over the charge only for the reason that the petitioner was ordered to be removed from the office and the applicant was nominated by the State Government to be the person to whom the charge was to be handed over. However, for these reasons and circumstances, the applicant does not become even a proper party in this writ petition because the matter directly and substantially in issue is to be determined only with reference to the submissions of the petitioner and the State Government. 29. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find a wee bit of justification that the applicant be allowed to join this writ petition or even to intervene in the matter. The application (IA No. 15552/2008) stands rejected." 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court of India has, in case of Mohd. Hussain Gulam Ali Shariffi v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors.: 2016 SCC Online SC 1887, held as under: "It is a settled principle of law, which does not need any authority to support the principle, that the plaintiff being a dominus litis cannot be forced to add any person as party to his suit unless it is held keeping in view the pleadings and the relief claimed therein that a person sought to be added as party is a necessary party and without his presence neither the suit can proceed and nor the relief can be granted. It is only then such person can be allowed to become party, else the suit will have to be dismissed for non- impleadment of such necessary party. Such does not appear to be a case here. We do not find that the presence of respondent Nos. It is only then such person can be allowed to become party, else the suit will have to be dismissed for non- impleadment of such necessary party. Such does not appear to be a case here. We do not find that the presence of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the facts of this case is required for deciding the legality of notice impugned in the suit on merits because the dispute centers around the question of legality and validity of the notice which, as mentioned above, arises between respondent No.1, who has issued the notice, and the person to whom it is given, i.e., appellant. In the suit in question, the Court is not called upon to adjudicate the rights between the appellant and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in relation to the suit house. Any such dispute, if arises, the same can be decided in the separate suit, which is pending between the parties or may be filed, if required, by the parties against each other but such dispute cannot be tried on the cause of action pleaded in the present suit by the appellant where the lis is essentially between the appellant (plaintiff) and respondent No. 1. Merely because the suit house is the subject matter between all the parties is no ground to get the dispute arising between the parties settled in one suit regardless of the nature of cause of action on which the suit is founded." 7. A Division Bench of this Court has, in case of Surendra Kumar Garg & Ors. versus the State of Rajasthan & Ors.: RLW 2005 (1) Raj. held as under:- "(6). 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. 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. Apart from that, the State Government has always inherent jurisdiction to revoke its earlier order in view of the subsequent events taking place in the matter. In this connection, reference of Bharat Kumar v. the State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1), and Mahadev Prasad Yadav v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (2), may be made." 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the backdrop of law laid down by this Court as also by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India, the applicants do not deserve to be impleaded as parties in the writ petition. 9. The application is dismissed accordingly.