Dilip Dave vs Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Others

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

The respondents no. 3 and 4 herein have approached this Court by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11113/2013 seeking interference with the departmental investigation and the eventual order dated 27.8.2013 dissolving the elected committee of the Banswara District Cricket Association (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Association") and appointing an ad hoc committee u/s 24(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Associations) Act, 2005 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). As the averments in the writ petition would disclose, the process culminating in the said decision was on the basis of a complaint filed by certain individuals including the appellant-herein and following an investigation conducted by the respondent no. 2.

The appellant filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Code") read with section 151 of the Code for impleading himself as a party-respondent in the writ petition contending in essence that if the order dated 27.8.2013 is interfered with, it would adversely affect him and that accordingly, he is a necessary party. By the order impugned in the instant appeal, the prayer though rejected, the appellant has been allowed to intervene in the matter.

Mr. Purohit has urged that as the investigation into the illegalities accompanying the election of the executive body of the Association had been made on a complaint lodged inter-alia by the appellant, he is essentially a necessary party in the writ proceedings and thus, the learned Single Judge has erred in law and on facts in rejecting his prayer for impleadment.

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on a prima facie consideration of the pleaded facts and the documents on record to the extent necessary at this stage, we are left unpersuaded by the challenge. It is trite law that a Court is left with the discretion to strike out or add parties if construed to be necessary in order to enable it to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved and seeking its adjudication in the proceeding before it. The real test thus to grant or reject a prayer for implement necessarily has to be guided by the satisfaction of the Court to the above effect. When queried by us, the learned counsel for the appellant has not as such been able to convincingly contend that the permission granted to the appellant to intervene in the writ proceedings would be inadequate to present his case effectively and meaningfully.

On an overall consideration of all aspects factual and legal, we are thus of the firm opinion that no interference with the impugned order is called for. The appeal lacks in merit and is dismissed.