JUDGMENT : (Avneesh Jhingan, J.) 1. In the petition filed by elected Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu challenging the suspension order dated 12.10.2024, the application (IA No.1/2024) under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is filed by the elected member of the Panchayat Samiti holding charge in place of suspended Pradhan. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the petitioner is an elected member of the Panchayat Samiti and is a necessary party in the writ petition. The contention is that after suspension of the petitioner charge of the Pradhan has been given to the applicant and should be impleaded as respondent. Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.940/2023 titled as Kamlesh Devi Vs. Hazari Lal Bairwa & Ors. decided on 23.07.2024. 3. As per contra, the suspension order is passed by the Additional Commissioner and Deputy Secretary to Government-II (Enquiry), Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur. The applicant was given charge after suspension of the petitioner and is not a necessary party in the writ petition. 4. Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC impleadment of party is permitted in case it appears just to the Court that it is necessary for effectually and completely adjudicating the question involved in the suit. 5. The issue is as to whether the applicant is a necessary party in the writ posing challenge to the suspension order. 6. The Supreme Court in Poonam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in [ (2016)2 SCC 779 ] after giving illustration that a person appointed Sarpanch by way of indirect election from the Panchayat Members, on removal of elected Sarpanch shall not be a necessary party in a petition filed by the elected Sarpanch challenging the removal. It was held that allottee of fair price shop on account of cancellation of allotment of earlier allottee cannot assail the order setting aside the cancellation of allotment of earlier allottee and is neither a necessary nor proper party. The relevant paras are quoted below:- “48. A few examples can be given so that the position can be easily appreciated. There are provisions in some legislations pertaining to Gram Panchayat or Panchayat Samiti where on certain grounds the competent authority has been conferred the power to remove the elected Sarpanch or the Chairman, as the case may be on certain counts. A few examples can be given so that the position can be easily appreciated. There are provisions in some legislations pertaining to Gram Panchayat or Panchayat Samiti where on certain grounds the competent authority has been conferred the power to remove the elected Sarpanch or the Chairman, as the case may be on certain counts. Against the order of the Collector, an appeal lies and eventually either a revision or a writ lies to the High Court. After his removal, someone by way of indirect election from amongst the members of the Panchayats or the Panchayat Samiti is elected as the Sarpanch or the Chairman. The removed Sarpanch assails his order of removal as he is aggrieved by the manner, method and the reasons for removal. In his eventual success, he has to hold the post of the Sarpanch, if the tenure is there. The question, thus, arises whether the person who has been elected in the meantime from amongst the members of the Panchayat Samiti or Sabha is a necessary party. The answer has to be a categorical “No”, for he cannot oppose the order of removal assailed by the affected Sarpanch nor can he defend his election because he has come into being because of a vacancy, arising due to different situation. 49. In the instant case, shop No.2 had become vacant. The appellant was allotted the shop, may be in the handicapped quota but such allotment is the resultant factor of the said shop falling vacant. The original allottee, that is, the respondent, assailed his cancellation and ultimately succeeded in appeal. We are not concerned with the fact that the appellant herein was allowed to put her stand in the appeal. She was neither a necessary nor a proper party. The appellate authority permitted her to participate but that neither changes the situation nor does it confer any legal status on her. She would have continued to hold the shop had the original allottee lost the appeal. She cannot assail the said order in a writ petition because she is not a necessary party. It is the State or its functionaries, who could have challenged the same in appeal. They have maintained sphinx like silence in that regard. Be that as it may, that would not confer any locus on the subsequent allottee to challenge the order passed in favour of the former allottee. It is the State or its functionaries, who could have challenged the same in appeal. They have maintained sphinx like silence in that regard. Be that as it may, that would not confer any locus on the subsequent allottee to challenge the order passed in favour of the former allottee. She is a third party to the lis in this context.” 7. The writ petitioner is an elected Pradhan and has challenged order of suspension. The seat of the Pradhan could not have been kept vacant and the applicant was given charge of Pradhan. 8. The order of the suspension was passed by the official respondents and is to be defended by the official respondents. In case the writ petitioner succeeds, the consequence of applicant no longer holding the charge for the post of Pradhan shall not make him necessary party. 9. Reliance of petitioner on the decision of Kamlesh Devi (supra) is of no avail. The issue before the Division Bench was not as to whether a Sarpanch holding charge on suspension of earlier Sarpanch was a necessary party and hence should be impleaded. It was held that a member of Panchayat holding charge of Sarpanch still is member of Panchayat and has locus standi to file appeal challenging the order passed re-instating Sarpanch removed on the allegation of misconduct. Further the respondent No.1 in that appeal without challenging order granting leave to file appeal raised the objection of locus standi to file appeal. Moreover, the decision of the Supreme Court in Poonam (supra) was not cited before the Division Bench. 10. It would not be out of place to mention that there are no pleadings against the applicant in the writ petition. Merely that in case of success of the petitioner in the writ petition, the applicant shall loose the charge of Pradhan shall not make him a necessary party in the writ petition. 11. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not satisfied that impleadment of applicant is necessary for just and effective disposal of the writ petition challenging the suspension order. 12. The application (IA No.1/2024) for impleadment as party is dismissed.