Bombay High Court
Rjesh S/O Ramesh Joshi vs Sadanand S/O Uttam Hivrale And ... on 11 January, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Avinash G. Gharote
4-lpa no.288-11.odt
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 52 OF 2012
IN
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.288 OF 2011
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 3399 OF 2010
Rajesh Ramesh Joshi -Vs. Sadanand Uttam Hivrale and ors.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R.G.Kavimandan, counsel for the appellant.
Mr.N.A.Waghmare, h/f Mr.P.B.Patil, counsel for respondent no.1
Ms. H.N.Jaipurkar, AGP for respondent nos.2 and 3.
CORAM : SUNIL B.SHUKRE &
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.
DATE : 11.01.2021.
1. Heard.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
this application was filed by the appellant at the time
when the law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in the
case of Ramchandra Dagoji Rangari through LRs. Smt.
Lilabai Ramchandra Rangari and ors. V. Vishwanath
Champat Naik and anr, reported in 2011(5) Mh.L.J.193,
holding that petition for issuance writ of certiorari under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not be
maintainable, without impleading the Court/tribunal/
authority, whose order is assailed before the High Court
Kavita
4-lpa no.288-11.odt
as a party respondent, held the field but, he points out
that the position of law as it prevails today has been
clarified by another Full Bench of this Court in the
judgment rendered in the case of Motilal Khamdeo Rokde
and ors. Vs. Balkrishna Baliram Lokhande (LPA No.177 of
2012) along with LPA No.288 of 2011 (Rajesh Ramesh
Joshi Vs. Sadandan Uttam Hivarale and ors.) rendered on
21.11.2019. He submits that now, it has been held that
after the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of
Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
reported in AIR 2015 SC 3623, ordinarily tribunal or an
authority would not be impleaded as a party unless the
Tribunal or the authority is considered to be a necessary
party in the sense that such tribunal or authority may be
required to defend the impugned order.
3. In view of the above referred legal position, as it
holds today, it is necessary to examine as to whether or
not there are any allegations made against the President
of Grievance Committee for Shikshan Sevak Nagpur so
that he may be required to defend himself and thus a
necessary party in the present case. Learned counsel for
the appellant submits that there are no such allegations
made against him and the President is also not a
necessary party.
4. In view of above, we find that now this
application has become infructuous and it is dismissed as
such.
Kavita
4-lpa no.288-11.odt
5. The letters patent appeal be posted for final
hearing in the next week.
JUDGE JUDGE
Kavita
