T Chandramouli vs T. Sahadeva Sharma,
2021 Latest Caselaw 1403 AP

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

      HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                &
              HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

                         WRIT APPEAL No.376 of 2020

                         (Through video conferencing)

T. Chandramouli, S/o. late T. Veerabhadraiah                         ... Appellant

                                      Versus

T. Sahadeva Sharma, S/o. T. Veerabhadraiah,
and others                                                       ... Respondents

Counsel for the appellants              : Ms. M. Indrani for Mr. Challa
                                          Gunaranjan

Counsel for respondent No.1             : Mr. S.A. Razak
Counsel for respondents 2 to 4          : Govt. Pleader for Endowments
Counsel for respondent No.5             : Mr. G. Ramana Rao, standing counsel

                              JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Dt:05.03.2021

(ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ)

We have heard Ms. M. Indrani, learned counsel representing

Mr. Challa Gunaranjan - learned counsel for the appellants,

Mr. S.A. Razak, learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner,

learned Govt. Pleader for Endowments for respondents 2 to 4 and

Mr. G. Ramana Rao, learned standing counsel for respondent No.5.

2. Leave to appeal was granted to the appellant by order dated

23.02.2021. The order reads as follows:

" Heard Ms.M.Indrani, learned counsel for applicants

and S.A.Razak, learned counsel for the 1st respondent-Writ

Petitioner.

In the prayer in the writ petition, the writ petitioner

prayed for a direction to the 4th respondent therein not to

either interfere with the duties of the petitioner as Archaka

HCJ & CPKJ W.A.No.376 of 2020

of the Temple in question as per his rotation ratio of four

months archakatvam to each temple deities or insist to

share archakatvam with his brothers. Though such a prayer

is made, brothers, who are applicants in this I.A., are not

made parties. In that view of the matter, we grant leave to

appeal to the applicants.

Accordingly, I.A. is disposed of.

Registry to list the appeal for consideration on

02-03-2021."

3. In the Writ Petition, averments are made stating that the

4th respondent is acting at the behest of his brother (the appellants herein)

and he is arbitrarily insisting that the writ petitioner shares the duties of

archakatvam with his brothers without there being any order.

4. The learned single Judge, at paragraph 24, observed that the

4th respondent being the Executive Officer, can neither be expected to

know the family affairs of the petitioner nor can he profess to know what

is happening in the family of the petitioner or about the tussle between

the petitioner and his brothers. In a number of paragraphs in the

judgment impugned herein, reference was made to the brothers of the

1st respondent/writ petitioner. It was also observed that if the brothers of

the writ petitioner have any claim for archakatvam, the remedy appears

to lie elsewhere. All these observations have been made in the absence of

the appellants.

5. In the case of Udit Narayan Singh Malpharia v. Additional

Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, reported in 1963 AIR 786, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court stated as follows:

HCJ & CPKJ W.A.No.376 of 2020

"... The next question is whether the parties whose rights

are directly affected are the necessary parties to a writ

petition to quash the order of a tribunal. As we have seen, a

tribunal or authority performs a judicial or quasi- judicial

act after hearing parties. Its order affects the right or rights

of one or the other of the parties before it. In a writ of

certiorari, the defeated party seeks for the quashing of the

order issued by the tribunal in favour of the successful

party. How can the High Court vacate the said order without

the successful party being before it ? Without the presence

of the successful party the High Court cannot issue a

substantial order affecting his right. Any order that may be

issued behind the back of such a party can be ignored by

the said party, with the result that the tribunal's order

would be quashed but the right vested in that party by the

wrong order of the tribunal would continue to be effective.

Such a party, therefore, is a necessary party and a petition

filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari without making him

a party or without impleading him subsequently, if allowed

by the court, would certainly be incompetent. A party

whose interests are directly affected is, therefore, a

necessary party. In addition, there may be parties who may

be described as proper parties, that is parties whose

presence is not necessary for making an effective order but

whose presence may facilitate the settling of all the

questions that may be involved in the controversy. The

question of making such a person as a party to a writ

proceeding depends upon the judicial discretion of the High

HCJ & CPKJ W.A.No.376 of 2020

Court in the circumstances of each case. Either one of the

parties to the proceeding may apply for the impleading of

such a party or such a party may suo motu approach the

court for being impleaded therein."

6. As noted earlier, the very prayer made by the writ petitioner to

permit him not to share archakatvam with his brothers, in our opinion,

makes the appellants necessary parties to the writ proceedings. In that

view of the matter, we are of the view that the writ petitioner ought to

have arrayed the appellants as necessary parties to the writ proceedings.

The order having been passed in the absence of the appellants, we are of

the considered opinion that the same cannot stand to a judicial scrutiny.

We, however, hasten to add that we have expressed no opinion on the

merits of the case.

7. As a result, the impugned order is set aside. The Writ Appeal is

allowed. The case is remanded to the learned single Judge for disposal.

Registry will list the Writ Petition before the appropriate single bench

having roster, on 22.03.2021. The appellants stand arrayed as respondents

5 to 9 in the Writ Petition. The Registry shall make necessary

incorporation in the cause-title of the Writ Petition to array the appellants

as respondents 5 to 9. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                               C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
MRR