Amar Singh S/O Late Shri ... vs The State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 1852 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                    S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 817/2022

Amar Singh S/o Late Shri Meherchand
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
The State Of Rajasthan & Ors.
                                                                   ----Respondents

Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8252/2021 Sukhdeva & Ors.

----Petitioners Versus The State Of Rajasthan & Ors.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10548/2021 Shishram S/o Keshar Ram

----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan & Ors.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 439/2022 Birmanand S/o Radheshyam

----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan & Ors.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 493/2022 Satpal S/o Raju Singh

----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan & Ors.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 538/2022 Naresh Son Of Shri Krishan Singh

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan & Ors.

                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr Mohit Balwada
                                  Mr. Jitendra Singh Shekhawat



                          (2 of 3)                               [CW-817/2022]


                               through VC
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Anil Mehta, AAG with
                               Ms. Archana
                               Mr. Ved Pal Shastri
                               Mr. Sanjay Tyagi through VC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order

28/02/2022

Mr. Anil Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General appears for

all the respondents in S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.817/2022 &

8252/2021.

Service is complete.

The matter comes up on an application No.1/2021 in S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.8252/2021 filed by the applicant Anand Kumar for

impleadment as a party-respondent.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order

impugned in the writ petition has been filed on his complaint and

hence, he may be impleaded as respondent in this matter.

Learned counsel for the petitioner opposed the prayer.

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners

against the order dated 29.06.2021 passed by the Assistant District

Collector, Jhunjhunu.

A perusal of the writ petition reveals that it is a lis in between

the petitioners and the official respondents. The applicant happens to

be complainant but, it is a well-established principle of law that in a

lis in between the aggrieved party and the official respondents, the

complainant is neither a necessary nor proper party. This Court has,

in case of Bedami Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.10073/2012, held as under:

"8. A bare look at the prayer clause of the writ petition indicates that the orders

(3 of 3) [CW-817/2022]

sought to be impugned in the writ petition are that of the Additional Collector and the Divisional Commissioner Jaipur. No relief has been sought against the applicants nor any directions are required to be passed against the applicants. There is no reason for this court to imagine nor in fact has been alleged or argued that the State Government whose orders are effectively under challenge will not defend in this writ petition and the impugned orders therein with seriousness.

This Court, has, in case of Ashok Kumar Vs. State of

Rajasthan and Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12230/2020,

held as under:

"In the writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity and legality of the order dated 24.09.2020 whereby, he, a Patwari, has been placed under suspension on filing of the charge sheet no.45/2020 against him. Indisputably, it is a lis in between the petitioner and the official respondents wherein, this Court is not satisfied that presence of the applicant is necessary for just and effective disposal of the controversy raised in the writ petition. It is trite law that a complainant is not entitled to be impleaded as a party if the lis is in between the employer and the employee to which he/she is stranger. Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to satisfy this Court that she is either necessary or proper party in the litigation."

In the backdrop of the aforesaid judgments, this Court is not

satisfied that the applicant is a necessary or proper party. In view

thereof, the application is dismissed accordingly.

However, since the Jan Kalyan Samiti, Mandrella has been

permitted to intervene in the matter, in the interest of justice, the

applicant- Anand Kumar is also permitted to intervene in the matter..

The application No.1/2021 stands disposed of accordingly.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

PRAGATI/31-36

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)