Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 263 (GUJ)

MANAJI AMRAJI THAKORE v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2023-02-07

ARAVIND KUMAR, ASHUTOSH SHASTRI

body2023
JUDGMENT : ASHUTOSH SHASTRI, J. 1. By way of present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellants-original petitioners have challenged the validity of an order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 16.07.2019 in Special Civil Application No. 19229 of 2018 whereby petition came to be dismissed and interim relief, granted earlier, came to be vacated forthwith. 2. The background of the facts, which has given rise to filing of present Letters Patent Appeal is that appellants-original petitioners state that Market Committee is duly constituted and the committee of it is consisting of eight agriculturists, four traders, two representatives of the marketing co-operative societies and three nominees, which includes one nominee of local self Government within which jurisdiction the principal market is situated and two other nominees of the State and the total number of Market Committee is consisting of 17 members. The term of Market Committee was expiring, as a result of which, the respondent No. 2 - Director declared the election programme in which the date of voting was fixed as 06.09.2018 and the counting of votes was fixed on 07.09.2018. According to appellants, the respondent No. 3 filled in nomination forms from the Constituency of the Agriculturist and 16 candidates contested the election from the Agricultural Constituency. The appellants' panel got elected, except one Mr. Hiteshbhai Keshabhai, who was in the panel of appellant, lost the election since he secured only 160 votes whereas Mr. Rajendrabhai Rasiklal Shah got 204 votes, Mr. Bhavesh Nathabhai Patel got 200 votes, Mr. Pravinbhai Ratilal Patel got 183 votes and Mr. Rathod Natvarsinh Bhikhusinh got 180 votes. In the same manner, Mr. Ramanbhai Gopalbhai Patel got 180 votes whereas Mr. Sureshbhai Bhanubhai Patel got 168 votes, Mr. Manaji Amraji Thakore got 167 votes and Mr. Chinubhai Somabhai Patel i.e. respondent No. 3 secured 165 votes. 2.1 It is the case of the appellants that on the previous day, a complaint was lodged in respect of purchase of votes and before counting started, it was decided that if any ballot is found tempered with or any ballot is tagged with the currency note or any other identifiable marks are found on the ballot, said ballot would be rejected. The Election Officer recorded a Panchnama before the counting of votes started and with the consent of everybody, three criteria were decided for rejection of ballots, namely, (i) if ballot paper is found more votes than number of seats, said ballot should be rejected; (ii) if the ballot is found with any remarks or identifying marks, the same should be rejected and (iii) if the ballot paper tagged with any currency notes, the same should be rejected. To these criteria, according to petitioners, everybody agreed with the suggestion and it is only thereafter, the counting of votes started. 2.2 It is the case of the appellants that four ballots were tagged with the currency notes and these four ballots were rejected and after rejection of said ballots, the votes were counted and it was found that the last person who got elected in the panel of petitioner, who secured 167 votes; whereas respondent No. 3 secured 165 votes. Four ballot papers tagged with currency notes were found to have voted in favour of respondent No. 3. Accordingly, appellant No. 1, who secured 167 votes would get lesser number of votes than the respondent No. 3, who has secured 165 votes and if counted he would get 169 votes, two more votes than appellant No. 2. The difference between other candidates is larger than four votes and as such there was no material change in so far as other candidates are concerned. Mr. Sureshbhai Bhanubhai Patel is the person who is elected from the panel of respondent No. 3 and as such he would secure 172 votes instead of 168 votes, however, according to petitioner, still last candidate elected of the panel of appellant is far ahead, who secured 180 votes. 2.3 It is the case of the appellants that after counting of votes was completed, objections were raised by respondent No. 3 that to the said process of criteria no consent was given by him for the purpose of counting of votes and rejection of the ballots. In all, 11 ballot papers were rejected on the ground that voters cast votes more than 8 in numbers and as such it was difficult to ascertain as to which voter has cast votes in whose favour and as such 11 ballots papers came to be rejected and the four ballots were rejected since the same were found with attached currency notes. According to appellants, the objections were raised by defected candidates after the process of counting was completed and as such the election authority, in exercise of powers under Rule 27 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) declared official result on 07.09.2018, in which, the appellants and Mr. Sureshbhai Bhanubhai Patel have been declared as elected form the Agricultural Constituency. 2.4 On account of such declaration of result, being aggrieved by the same, respondent No. 3 herein preferred an election petition before respondent No. 2, a competent authority, and the said petition was registered as Election Petition No. 17 of 2018. The main contention in the said petition was that four ballots which were rejected on the ground that same were found with attached currency notes. There is no such procedure prescribed in the Rules or authority is empowered to reject and and as such the rejection of said ballots were erroneous. The Director on entertaining the said petition was pleased to issue notice upon the appellants as well as respondent No. 7 and in the said election petition, replies were filed and though it was pointed out that criteria was fixed before counting of votes, the rejection of ballots were with the consent of one and all, still the Director in the said election petition passed an order on 09.10.2018 holding that four ballots were wrongly rejected and as such directed to count the said votes in favour of respondent No. 3. 2.5 The appellants feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, passed by respondent No. 2, filed Special Civil Application before this Court, which was numbered as Special Civil Application No. 16044 of 2018 inter-alia praying to set aside the said order dated 09.10.2018 but since the said petition was not heard by learned Single Judge, the appellants were constrained to prefer Letters Patent Appeal being Letter Patent Appeal No. 1328 of 2018 and Division Bench of this Court was pleased to dispose of said Letters Patent Appeal vide order dated 17.10.2018 and in view of the statement made by learned advocate appearing for the appellants, the co-ordinate Bench was pleased to permit the appellants to make a request before the learned Single Judge to grant priority for hearing and disposal of the petition, as a result of which, learned Single Judge was pleased to hear the said petition and matter was taken up finally at admission stage on 22.10.2018 in which without expressing any opinion on merit, the matter was remanded back to respondent No. 2 to clarify the impugned order in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 28 of the Rules and the petition to that extent was allowed. 2.6 It is further case of the appellants that subsequently the matter was fixed by the authority on 26.10.2018 on which day the learned advocate appearing for the appellants appeared before the authority, submitted an application pointing out that committee is not being constituted by respondent No. 2 and as such the proceedings of the election petition may be postponed. It was further submitted that there is a complete in action in constituting the committee. However, according to appellants, the authority refused to entertain the application and same was ordered to be decided along with the main matter. Later on, another application was submitted by the appellants pointing out that Rule 28 of the Rules provide for holding of an inquiry, however, no inquiry was conducted and if any inquiry is conducted, the outcome of the said inquiry may be informed to the appellants and order thereof may be supplied. Later on, another application was submitted by the appellants pointing out that Rule 28 of the Rules provide for holding of an inquiry, however, no inquiry was conducted and if any inquiry is conducted, the outcome of the said inquiry may be informed to the appellants and order thereof may be supplied. The said application was though insisted for being taken up for hearing, the authority has not considered which has constrained the appellants to demand a copy of minutes of the submissions recorded by respondent No. 2 - authority and according to appellants, without considering the said submissions, the petition preferred by respondent No. 3 came to be allowed vide judgment and order dated 04.12.2018 and it is this order, passed by respondent No. 2, which is made the subject matter of petition being Special Civil Application No. 19229 of 2018 for the reliefs which are prayed in paragraph No. 31 of the petition. 2.7 The said petition came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge wherein after hearing at length both the sides, learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the petition vide oral order dated 16.07.2019 and it is against this order, passed by learned Single Judge as well as against the order passed by the authority below, this Letters Patent Appeal is filed. 3. The appeal was admitted on 29.07.2019 and by way of interim relief, the operation of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 16.07.2019 came to be suspended till further orders and after completion of pleadings, the appeal has come up for consideration first in which we have heard Mr. B.M. Mangukiya, learned advocate assisted by Ms. Bela A Prajapati, learned advocate appearing for the appellants, Mr. V.C. Vaghela, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. K.M. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State. Incidentally, we may quote that during the pendency of this Letters Patent Appeal, in the year 2022, precisely on 24.11.2022 the Agricultural Produce Market Committee through its Secretary has submitted an application to be impleaded in the appeal since the outcome of the proceedings would effect the the affairs of the applicant and said application was registered as Civil Application No. 1 of 2022 and was put up along with the main matter. 4. With the aforesaid background, we have extensively heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties. 4. With the aforesaid background, we have extensively heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties. Mr. B.M. Mangukiya, learned advocate appearing for the appellants has vehemently contended that order passed by the learned Single Judge is suffering from the vice of non-application of mind to the relevant issue and while passing the order, no proper scrutiny of provisions of law has been undertaken. In fact there is no provisions under the Rules as to how the ballots can be examined so it is left to the discretion of concerned election officer to decide its validity and in the course of such discretion, the election officer has set out the norms as to how there would be a rejection of ballot before initiation of counting of votes. Mr. Mangukiya, learned advocate has further submitted that said norms which are set out with the consent of all concerned and as such the votes which are found attached with the currency notes were decided to be rejected and accordingly, the said aspect ought to have been examined not only by an authority but by the learned Single Judge and as such the decision taken by the learned Single Judge is quite in contrast to the norms which are already prescribed, there is hardly any justification in sustaining the order passed by learned Single Judge. In fact, according to Mr. Mangukiya, learned advocate, respondent No. 3 was very much present when the norms were prescribed and as such it is not open for respondent No. 3 then to raise grievance about it. It has been contended that apart from this, the conduct of respondent No. 3 is such that, wherein he allowed the votes to be counted and it is only at the fag end after declaration of result, he raised the grievance and tried to challenge the outcome of the election and as such there is absolutely no justification. According to Mr. Mangukiya, learned advocate, respondent authority arrived at a conclusion contrary to the norms and procedure which is prescribed for counting of votes and rejection thereof. Since these material aspect has not been considered, the orders under challenge are suffering from jurisdictional errors and can be construed as perverse in the eye of law. According to Mr. Mangukiya, learned advocate, respondent authority arrived at a conclusion contrary to the norms and procedure which is prescribed for counting of votes and rejection thereof. Since these material aspect has not been considered, the orders under challenge are suffering from jurisdictional errors and can be construed as perverse in the eye of law. It has been further contended that discretion vested in an authority i.e. election officer cannot be assailed or interfered with unless it is so arbitrarily exercised and here the decision of election officer of rejection of votes ballots which are found attached with currency notes rejection was rightly undertaken and as such the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not in consonance with the material on record. 4.1 Mr. Mangukiya, learned advocate also submitted that basic principle features of democracy is that democratic institution is governed by principle of will of the majority and for the purpose of ascertaining the will of majority, process of election should be free from any impurity and should not be vitiated. With a view to see that process can be concluded in a smooth manner before commencement of counting of votes the election authority has made it clear that any ballot which is not in consonance with the criteria prescribed can be rejected and here is the case in which ballots were found with currency notes of Rs.10 which clearly indicate that same were rightly rejected in favour of voters and breach of secrecy of votes. According to Mr. Mangukiya, learned advocate goes to the basic principle of democracy and if allowed such erroneous approach, same would vitiate the foundation of ascertaining the will of the majority and therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not in consonance with the said proposition of law, and same deserves to be quashed. 4.2 In fact, by way of draft amendment, a contention is tried to be raised that learned Single Judge has committed an error apparent on the face of record since the learned Single Judge has observed that election authority has acted under the conceived threat since some of the members have created ruckus. 4.2 In fact, by way of draft amendment, a contention is tried to be raised that learned Single Judge has committed an error apparent on the face of record since the learned Single Judge has observed that election authority has acted under the conceived threat since some of the members have created ruckus. The learned advocate has submitted that CD which was called for by the learned Single Judge during the course of hearing and placed on record it would clearly indicate that respondent No. 3 never raised any objections about rejection of ballots and found tagged with the currency notes and as such the finding which has been recorded by the learned Single Judge is not in consonance with the said material as well as. Hence, on the ground of perversity, the order deserves to be corrected. [ 4.3 Mr. Mangukiya, learned advocate has further contended that an error is committed since Rule 22 of APMC Rules does not provide for rejection of ballots paper and as such election authority could not have rejected those ballots and as such Director has rightly reversed the decision of the election authority. It is this conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge which is not germane to allow and if the provisions is silent, it would not mean that ballots found with currency notes can be entertained for the purpose of counting. In fact, the learned Single Judge, according to Mr. Mangukiya, learned advocate, has failed to advert to the correct proposition of law and the basic principles of democracy namely if the secrecy of votes is not maintained there would not be any free or fair election process. Hence, according to Mr. Mangukiya, learned advocate, the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside by granting relief as prayed for in the petition. 4.4 By drawing attention to Section 11 of the APMC Act to indicate that constitution of Constituency and the manner in which the election is to be conducted Mr. Mangukiya, learned advocate has referred to Rules 4, 6, 10 and 22 and by referring to panchnama which have been attached to the petition compilation at page 20, a contention is raised that order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be corrected. Hence, he prays for Letters Patent Appeal being allowed as prayed for. No other submissions have been made. Hence, he prays for Letters Patent Appeal being allowed as prayed for. No other submissions have been made. 5. So far as respondent No. 3 is concerned, Mr. V.C. Vaghela, learned advocate did file vakalatnama and represented but at the crucial stage of hearing he has remained absent and as such Mr. K.M. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader has made an attempt to defend the order passed by an authority. According to Mr. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader the order passed by an authority is in conformity with the relevant material produced before it and a conjoint reading of reasons along with material would indicate that there is no error of whatsoever nature committed by the authority. In fact, according to Mr. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader Rule 22 does not provide rejection of ballot for the reason which is tried to be assigned by the appellants' counsel and as such it cannot be said that any error is committed. Apart from that, original record was verified by an authority while passing the order impugned and based upon such examination on record, it was revealed that contesting respondent No. 3 had not signed the said process which was said to have been determined before starting of counting of votes and as such it is not open for Mr. B.M. Mangukiya, learned advocate to indicate that norms for counting and rejection of ballots were determined with consent of all parties. Hence, the reasons which are assigned by the authority are just and proper, valid and no error is committed by an authority. So far as the order passed by the learned Single Judge is concerned, said order would clearly indicate that same has been passed after proper and critical analysis of material on record, after assigning proper valid reasons and the conclusion which has been arrived is clearly substantiate the material and as such according to Mr. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader there is neither any illegality nor any perversity nor order suffers from vice of non-application of mind. Hence, in the absence thereof no interference be made in this intra court appeal. 5.1 Mr. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader there is neither any illegality nor any perversity nor order suffers from vice of non-application of mind. Hence, in the absence thereof no interference be made in this intra court appeal. 5.1 Mr. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader has further submitted that proposition of law in respect of intra court appeal is quite clear that a possible view cannot be substituted for the sake of substitution in the absence of any perversity or material irregularity if there is no distinguishable material and the very same material is clearly examined by the learned Single Judge then a possible view may not be disturbed and looking to this proposition of law on the scope of appellate jurisdiction, there is hardly any case made out by the appellants calling for any interference. Hence, Mr. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader has prayed for dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal. 6. Mr. Amit R. Joshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant in Civil Application praying for being impleaded has submitted that applicant may be impleaded in the Letters Patent Appeal since outcome of the Letters Patent Appeal would directly effect his right but has fairly conceded to the effect that in the original proceedings i.e. in the writ petition the applicant neither made any attempt to be joined nor has been joined and an application is filed with said prayer only in Letters Patent Appeal. Hence, we are of the view that Civil Application in this background is not to be carried further since Mr. Joshi, learned advocate also has not made any submissions and admits that applicant was not a party in the original proceedings. 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through material on record, few circumstances deserve consideration before coming to an ultimate conclusion in the present order. 8. From the material on record and the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it appears that at the time of preliminary hearing with a view to ensure as to whether with regard to rejection of ballot papers method adopted was unanimously determined or not the videography was produced of the whole process by pointing one learned advocate as mentioned in the order. Upon perusal, it was found by the learned Single Judge that there was no unanimous consensus to reject the ballot papers and to arrive at that conclusion the learned Single Judge has also perused the Rojkam which had been produced and found that it did not bear the signature of respondent No. 3. Hence, learned Single Judge from the material on record found that there was doubtful circumstances as to whether specific consent was there or not and that was so in view of the fact that appellants - original petitioners have not produced the complete document of Rojkam. Hence, learned Single Judge has in terms held that in the absence of any identity reflection, it cannot be said that rejection was just and proper and as such the decision of election officer was examined by the learned Single Judge at length on the basis of critical analysis of material on record. It was also found by the learned Single Judge on the basis of report of Court Commissioner that election officer was initially not willing to reject those four votes found with currency notes but it is only on account of ruckus which had been created the election officer was pressurized to reject the votes and this fact having been clearly found by the learned Single Judge as erroneous approach had not been accepted by Director of Agriculture Marketing and Rural Finance and as such upheld the order dated 04.12.2018 and petition was not entertained. 9. Since the view taken by the learned Single Judge is based upon the material placed on record of the case, we deem it proper to quote hereunder the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge: “6. However, the learned Advocate Mr. Vaghela for the respondent No. 3 submitted that there was no unanimous consensus to reject the ballot papers if found tagged with the currency notes, however, the election officer was forced by the panel of the petitioners to reject those votes by creating ruckus as transpiring from the report of the Court Commissioner. 7. However, the learned Advocate Mr. Vaghela for the respondent No. 3 submitted that there was no unanimous consensus to reject the ballot papers if found tagged with the currency notes, however, the election officer was forced by the panel of the petitioners to reject those votes by creating ruckus as transpiring from the report of the Court Commissioner. 7. At the outset, it may be noted that the rojkam (Annexure-I) was prepared by the election officer on 7.9.2018, which records that before the commencement of the voting, the present candidates and agents were informed in writing that if the number of votes cast by the voter was found to be more than the requisite votes, such votes shall be rejected and that the ballot papers with any marking and showing the identity of the voter also shall be rejected. This rojkam appears to have recorded the proceedings of the election, however, the said rojkam has not been signed by the respondent No. 3, though it bears the signature of the petitioner No. 1. The said rojkam, also does not state anything as to whether the ballot papers found with currency notes would be rejected or not. It is pertinent to note that though the said rojkam runs into four pages, the petitioners had produced only first two pages as Annexure-I. It is needless to say that the petitioners are bound to state all material and correct facts in the petition and produce the complete set of documents on which reliance is placed, failing which the petition would be liable to be dismissed. In the instant petition, the petitioners having not produced the entire complete document of Rojkam (Annexure-I), the petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. 8. The Court having suspected the veracity of the said Rojkam produced by the petitioners, had called for the original record. On the perusal of the original record, it clearly transpires that the respondent No. 3 had not put his signature in the said rojkam, and therefore, it could not be said that there was unanimous decision taken by all the candidates with regard to the rejection of ballot papers found with the currency notes. On the perusal of the original record, it clearly transpires that the respondent No. 3 had not put his signature in the said rojkam, and therefore, it could not be said that there was unanimous decision taken by all the candidates with regard to the rejection of ballot papers found with the currency notes. It is also pertinent to note that the only decision taken prior to commencement of voting was that any ballot paper was found having any symbol or mark, which would otherwise disclose the identity of the voter shall be rejected. By tagging currency notes with ballot papers, no identity of the voter could be said to have been revealed. Hence, the election officer could not have rejected such votes. As transpiring from the report of the Court Commissioner also, the election officer initially was not willing to reject the four votes, however, as some of the candidates had created ruckus, the election officer after having discussion with the voters, rejected the said votes orally and kept them separate. It also appears that during the course of counting all candidates had cooperated, however, when the election officer was preparing the list of winners considering the number of votes, some of the candidates had started taking signatures of the other candidates on a piece of paper and while the election officer was preparing final result, the ruckus was created by the candidates and policemen were called in the room. Thus, there was no unanimous decision taken by the voters that the ballot paper containing currency notes shall be rejected, as sought to be submitted by Mr. Mangukiya. 9. In the opinion of the Court, in absence of any specific rule with regard to rejection of ballot papers except Rule 22, which states that if any voter had cast more votes than the requisite number of votes, such votes shall be rejected, the election officer on her own could not have rejected the ballot papers found tagged with currency notes, merely because some ruckus was created by the candidates. From the rojkam prepared by her also it appears that no decision was taken to reject the votes found with the currency notes prior to or after the counting was started. Under the circumstances, the election officer on her own could not have taken any decision by orally mentioning that it was the unanimous decision of the candidates. From the rojkam prepared by her also it appears that no decision was taken to reject the votes found with the currency notes prior to or after the counting was started. Under the circumstances, the election officer on her own could not have taken any decision by orally mentioning that it was the unanimous decision of the candidates. The respondent No. 2 has rightly set aside the said decision of the election officer and directed to count the rejected votes as per the impugned order. The Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the said order.” 10. Form the aforesaid specific conclusion arrived at is based on the analysis of material, we have found that view is a possible view which in the absence of any distinguishable material, we are not inclined to substitute with another view, which may also be possible. The learned advocate appearing for the appellants has not been able to point out any distinguishable material on the basis of prevailing record. Hence, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case in which the view taken by the learned Single Judge deserves any interference. More particularly, when it appears that the election officer has not been able to take an independent decision and rather he was compelled on account of ruckus being created to treat certain ballots for being rejected. The democratic principles which are tried to be pressed into service by learned advocate cannot be stretched to that extent whereby on account ruckus created by the candidates if any election officer is compelled to take a decision contrary to law, said decision cannot be allowed to stand in the eye of law, as rightly not allowed by the learned Single Judge. We see no error or irregularity or perversity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, we deem it proper not to entertain the appeal. 11. We see no error or irregularity or perversity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, we deem it proper not to entertain the appeal. 11. Now so far as the contention with regard to rule having not been providing any procedure for rejection of ballot papers, we are of the view said issue is not available to the appellants to be raised in view of the fact that respondent No. 3 has in categorised terms stated that he was not party to the so called procedure which is undenied and he was not a party to the panchnama nor the election officer had taken any decision after reading over the fact to the respondent No. 3 nor instructions were read over. The videography which has been examined by the learned Single Judge including the report prepared by the Court Commissioner whereunder a finding of fact is arrived at is a possible view. In the absence of any distinguishable material, in an appeal we are not in a position to substitute our view to possible view arrived at and this is more so in view authoritative principle laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Management of Narendra and Company Private Limited vs. Workmen of Narendra and Company, (2016) 3 SCC 340 , wherein it is clearly spelt out that a possible view cannot be set at naught or substituted just for the sake of substitution in the absence of any distinguishable material. We deem it proper to quote relevant observations of Hon'ble Apex Court hereunder: “5. Once the learned Single Judge having seen the records had come to the conclusion that the industry was not functioning after January 1995, there is no justification in entering a different finding without any further material before the Division Bench. The Appellate Bench ought to have noticed that the statement of MW 3 is itself part of the evidence before the Labour Court. Be that as it may, in an intra-court appeal, on a finding of fact, unless the Appellate Bench reaches a conclusion that the finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it shall not disturb the same. Merely because another view or a better view is possible, there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the Single Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief.” 12. Merely because another view or a better view is possible, there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the Single Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief.” 12. In view of aforesaid situation which is prevailing on record and in view of fact that there is no infirmity of any nature in the order passed by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the petition, we see no reason to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, same being meritless, it deserves to be dismissed and so also the Civil Application for impleadment as stated above is also not possible to be entertained in view of the fact that neither any attempt was made to be impleaded in the original proceedings i.e. before the learned Single Judge nor at the initial stage itself such application having been filed. On the contrary, with a view to divert the attention of Court, this application is filed in the proceedings filed in the year 2019, for being impleaded in the year 2022 without explaining cause for delay. Hence, we see no reason to entertain the application more particularly when the appeal itself lacks merit. 13. Hence, we are inclined to pass following: ORDER: (i) The Letter Patent Appeal is hereby dismissed as a consequence thereof the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 16.07.2019 in Special Civil Application No. 19229 of 2018 is hereby confirmed. (ii) Accordingly, Civil Application No. 1 of 2022 also stands dismissed. (iii) All pending applications stand consigned to records. (iv) No order as to costs.