Sh. Lalrammawia vs The State Of Mizoram And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 1631 Gua

                                                                  Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010188632021




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : W.P.(Crl.)/22/2021

            SH. LALRAMMAWIA
            SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, WESTERN CIRCLE, PHE DEPARTMENT,
            GOVT. OF MIZORAM



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF MIZORAM AND ANR.
            REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF MIZORAM, HOME
            DEPARTMENT, AIZAWL

            2:VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT
             REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER/CHIEF SECRETARY
            TO THE GOVT. OF MIZORA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. A R MALHOTRA

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, MIZORAM




                                 BEFORE
            HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
                  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

                                          ORDER

Date : 26.04.2023 (A.M. Bujor Barua, J)

Both the petitioner Lalrammawia and the earlier Deputy Commissioner, Champhai district of Mizoram are/were aggrieved by an order dated 03.05.2019 Page No.# 2/3

of the Special Judge, PC Act, in ACB PS Case No. 4/2017. The earlier Deputy Commissioner instituted Criminal Revision Petition No. 4/2019 (Aizawl) against the order dated 03.05.2019, wherein the order of 03.05.2019 was set aside in respect of the earlier Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner instituted W.P.(Crl.) No. 2/2019 (Aizawl) against the same order dated 03.05.2019. When the matter came up before the learned Single Judge on 31.08.2021, an order was passed taking a different view from the order passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 4/2019 and accordingly the matter had been referred to the larger bench on the question of law framed for the purpose.

Mr. A.M. Bora, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has raised an issue that if the larger bench in the reference takes a different view, the earlier Deputy Commissioner who was the petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No. 4/2019 and is a beneficiary of a judgment in his favour, would be prejudiced, and therefore he would be a necessary party to be impleaded in the W.P.(Crl.) No. 2/2019 as a respondent so that in furtherance of the principles of natural justice he can also be given an opportunity of hearing. On a question being put to the learned senior counsel as to which proposition of law requires the beneficiary of another judgment which otherwise had attained its finality, where the question of law involved is referred to a larger bench, to be also heard by the larger bench by impleading him as a respondent. It is submitted that there are many propositions which are available to substantiate the requirement of the beneficiary of the other judgment to be also heard. But when the matter is taken up no such proposition has been produced before the Court.

List on 09.05.2023 for further consideration and the learned senior counsel for the petitioner may produce the relevant proposition of law as sought to be Page No.# 3/3

urged.

JUDGE JUDGE

Comparing Assistant