Rajasthan High Court
Soniya Soni W/O Shri Manish Soni vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 July, 2022
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6927/2022
Soniya Soni W/o Shri Manish Soni
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.B. Mathur Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Nikhil Simlote
Mr. Salim Khan Gori
Mr. Laxmit Kant Malpura
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anita Agarwal with
Mr. Laxmikant
Mr. Yashodhar Pandey for
Mr. Anil Mehta, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
14/07/2022
The matter comes up on an application (3/2022) filed by the
applicants-Sarv/S Babu Lal Khatik, Rakesh Kumar Saini, Mani
Shankar Saini, Pawan Agarwal, Dhanraj Goyal & Smt. Kailashi Devi
claiming themselves to be Ward Member of the Nagar Palika,
Malpura, Tonk seeking their impleadment as respondents.
Learned counsel for the applicants, drawing attention of this
Court towards the various complaints made either by them or by
the Block Congress Committee, Malpura or by the Officer(s) of the
Nagar Palika, Malpura against the petitioner and/or her husband-
Shri Manish Soni, submitted that to place the correct facts before
this court not brought forward by the petitioner and to facilitate
complete justice between the parties, they be impleaded as
respondents. She submits that even if it is assumed that they are
(2 of 4) [CW-6927/2022]
not necessary parties, atleast, they are proper parties to the
litigation. She, therefore, prayed that the application be allowed
and the applicants be impleaded as respondents.
Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that since the writ petition involves a lis in between the
petitioner and the official respondents, the applicants are neither
necessary nor, proper parties. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal
of the application.
Heard. Considered.
Indisputably, the writ petition involves a lis in between the
petitioner, an elected Member and Chairperson of Nagar Palika,
Malpura and the official respondents in as much as challenge is
made to the legality and validity of the order dated 04.05.2022
placing her under suspension. Merely because the applicants are
Ward Members and have made complaint(s) against the petitioner,
they can neither be reckoned as necessary nor, proper parties.
A similar application filed by another applicant-Asha Nama
seeking her impleadment as respondent, was dismissed by this
Court vide its order dated 24.05.2022. Therein, this Court has
relied upon a co-ordinate Bench order of this court in case of Smt.
Vimla Vyas Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: AIR 2009
Rajasthan 109 as also a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court of
India in case of Mohd. Hussain Gulam Ali Shariffi Vs.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors.: 2016 SCC
Online SC 1887.
A Division Bench of this Court has, in case of Surendra
Kumar Garg & Ors. versus the State of Rajasthan & Ors.:
RLW 2005 (1) Raj. held as under:-
(3 of 4) [CW-6927/2022]
"(6). So far as the ground of locus
standi is concerned, it may be mentioned
that once the complaint is made, the
business of the complainant is over. He is
no more person to make any interference
as the complaint is the subject-matter of
enquiry between the party concerned and
the Government and no-one has a right to
make an interference. The complainant is
only an informer and the business has
been completed by the appellants, while
making complaint against the respondent
No. 3 and they have no interest left in the
matter to get acquaintance with the
further development of the proceedings.
Apart from that, the State Government
has always inherent jurisdiction to revoke
its earlier order in view of the subsequent
events taking place in the matter. In this
connection, reference of Bharat Kumar v.
the State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1), and
Mahadev Prasad Yadav v. State of
Rajasthan and Ors. (2), may be made."
Thus, it is settled law that even a complainant is not entitled
for impleadment as a party in case the lis is in between an
aggrieved person and the official respondents and case of the
applicants cannot be termed to be on a better footing than the
case of the complainant.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the
backdrop of law laid down by this Court as also by the Hon'ble
Apex Court of India, this Court is not satisfied that presence of the
applicants is necessary for just and effective disposal of the
controversy involved in the matter.
(4 of 4) [CW-6927/2022]
The application is dismissed accordingly.
List the matter on 22.07.2022 as prayed.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Sudha/41
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
