Rajasthan High Court
Gabbar Singh Meena Son Of Johari ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 12 September, 2022
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7578/2021
Gabbar Singh Meena Son Of Johari Lal Meena
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1647/2021
Gabbar Singh Meena Son Of Johari Lal Meena
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5021/2021
Gabbar Singh Meena S/o Shri Johari Lal Meena
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.S. Gouttam with
Mr. Jeetendra Kuamr Meena
Mr. Amit Jindal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gajanand Mishra Manav, AGC
Mr. Rajendra Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
12/09/2022
The matter comes up on an application No.1/2022 in S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.7578/2021 filed by Smt. Shakuntala Devi
seeking her impleadment as respondent No.6 in the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after
suspension of the petitioner as Sarpanch vide order dated
14.07.2021, she has been elected as Sarpanch in the meeting
(2 of 3) [CW-7578/2021]
dated 25.08.2021 and charge has been handed over to her. He
submits that therefore, she is a necessary party in the writ
petition and be impleaded as such.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a lis in
between him and the official respondents in which the applicant is
neither a necessary nor a proper party. He, in support of his
submissions, relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court of
India passed in case of Poonam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.;
(2016) 2 SCC 779.
Heard. Considered.
Indisputably, the order under challenge in the writ petition
has been passed by the official respondents and therefore, it being
a lis in between the petitioner and the official respondents, the
applicant does not appear either to be a necessary nor a proper
party to the litigation.
The Hon'ble Apex Court of India has, in case of Poonam
(supra), held as under:-
"47. Few examples can be given so that the position
can be easily appreciated. There are provisions in some
legislations pertaining to Gram Panchayat or Panchayat
Samiti where on certain grounds the competent authority
has been conferred the power to remove the elected
Sarpanch or the Chairman, as the case may be on certain
counts. Against the order of the Collector, an appeal lies
and eventually either a revision or a writ lies to the High
Court. After his removal, someone by way of indirect
election from amongst the members of the Panchayats or
the Panchayat Samiti is elected as the Sarpanch or the
Chairman. The removed Sarpanch assails his order of
removal as he is aggrieved by the manner, method and the
reasons for removal. In his eventual success, he has to hold
the post of the Sarpanch, if the tenure is there. The
question, thus, arises whether the person who has been
elected in the meantime from amongst the members of the
Panchayat Samiti or Sabha is a necessary party. The answer
has to be a categorical 'no', for he cannot oppose the order
of removal assailed by the affected Sarpanch nor can he
defend his election because he has come into being because
of a vacancy, arising due different situation."
(3 of 3) [CW-7578/2021]
Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the
backdrop of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India, the
application deserves to be dismissed.
The application is dismissed accordingly.
List the matter on 18.10.2022 as prayed.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
PRAGATI/47-49
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
