Dr. B.R. Soni vs Principal Secretary To Government

Order 07/09/2020 In S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 46/2020 The matter comes up on application no.1/2020 under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC, filed by Dr. Mahesh Joshi seeking his impleadment as party-respondent no. 5 in the revision petition.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he was elected President of Jaipur District Cricket Association and on a complaint made against the association, he was also issued notice by the enquiry officer which was duly responded by him. He submits that after conclusion of the enquiry, the Registrar, Cooperative Society, Jaipur, the competent authority under the Rajasthan Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Association) Act, 2005 (for brevity-'the Act of 2005'), again issued notice to him which was also responded by him. He submits that, as a matter of fact, the complaint was made against the present petitioner who was elected Secretary of the Association and in absence of the applicant as a party to the revision petition, there is none else to bring on record the irregularities committed by the petitioner. He submits that his presence is necessary to bring the true facts before this Court.

Drawing attention of this Court towards para 8 of the revision petition, learned counsel submitted that since allegations have been levelled against the applicant; his presence is necessary for just and effective disposal of the controversy involved in the matter.

Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is a statutory revision petition under Section 25(2) of the Act of 2005 directed against the order dated 06.03.2020 passed by the appellate authority whereby his appeal has been dismissed. He submits that the applicant was neither a party before the appellate authority nor, he endeavoured his impleadment there and hence, he cannot be impleaded as a party in the revision petition arising out of the appellate order. Learned senior counsel submitted that the competent authority has, vide its order dated 30.01.2020, dissolved the Jaipur District Cricket Association against which he preferred an appeal and the applicant, the Ex-President of the Association, did not choose to prefer any appeal. He submits that the appellate authority has maintained the order of dissolution of the Association; still, the applicant did not choose to file any appeal. His submission is that the lis is between him and the statutory authorities in which the applicant cannot be reckoned as necessary or proper party. He asserted that status of the applicant cannot be on better footing than a complainant and in view of settled law that even the complainant is neither necessary nor proper party in a lis between the aggrieved person and the Government body; the application deserves to be dismissed.

Heard the learned counsels and perused the record. A perusal of the complaint, Annexure-1 reveals that the allegations were directed against the present petitioner and the executive body of the Association. The competent authority has, vide its order dated 30.01.2020, dissolved the Jaipur District Cricket Association. This order was assailed by the petitioner before the appellate authority out of which the present revision petition arises. The applicant choose neither to assail the order dated 30.01.2020 nor, he has challenged the order passed by the appellate authority maintaining the order whereby the Jaipur District Cricket Association was dissolved. The record reveals that the applicant did not seek his impleadment also before the appellate authority.

The present petition being statutory revision against the order passed by the appellate authority, the applicant can claim no legal right to be impleaded as a party respondent in absence of him being one of the parties before the appellate authority. Even otherwise also, the status of the applicant cannot be on better footing than that of a complainant and in view of the settled law that even a complainant is not a necessary/proper party in a lis between the aggrieved person and the Government/statutory authorities, the applicant cannot be impleaded as a party to the litigation.

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has, in case of Ramji Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.: 1985 WLN (UC) 334, held as under:

In the writ petition the petitioner who is Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat, has challenged the validity of the order passed by the State Government whereby the petitioner has been suspended from the office of Sarpanch. The applicants are seeking to be impleaded as parties on the ground that they had made a complaint against the petitioner and on the basis of the said complaint a preliminary enquiry was held and the impugned order of suspension was passed. It may be that the applicants made the complaint on the basis of which the impugned order of suspension was passed. But in so far as the present proceedings are concerned, the necessary and proper party can only be the State Government which has passed the impugned order. The applicants can neither be regarded as necessary parties nor they could be regarded as proper parties. The application is, therefore, dismissed.

Another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has, in case of Vimla Vyas Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.: AIR 2009 Raj 109, held as under:

Appropriate it shall be to deal at the first with the application (IA No. 15552/2008) as moved in this case on behalf of the applicant Smt. Shakuntala Singhvi. A comprehension of the fact situation of the case and the grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner makes it clear that the essential and substantial issue in this writ petition remains about the legality and validity of the order dated 26-12-2007 (Annex.12) as passed by the State Government under Section 63(3) of the Act of 1959 removing the petitioner from the office of Chairperson and so also from the Membership of the Municipal Board. Merta City and debarring her from participating in the elections for next six years. The order aforesaid has been passed on the basis of the enquiry conducted against the petitioner wherein, after recording evidence, the learned Enquiry Officer made his report dated 4- 12-2007 (Annex. 10).

Noticeable it is that per Section 69-A of the Act of 1959, whenever a Chairperson resigns or ceases to be so or is removed from the office or is placed under suspension, or his election, whether as a Member or as the Chairperson, is declared void, such Chairperson is required to hand over the charge of the office including all the papers and properties pertaining to such office in the prescribed manner to such Member as the State Government may direct; and such Member to whom charge is handed over, would hold such charge for not more than a period of one month or until taking over charge by the Chairperson whichever be the earlier. The order dated 26-12-2007 (Annex. 14) as passed by the State Government under Section 69-A(1)(iv)(a) and proviso thereto had been nothing but a consequential order that was passed in view of the principal order dated 26-12-2007 (Annex.12) whereby the petitioner was removed from the office of Chairperson. Such an order was required to be made so as to adhere to the requirements of law that upon removal of the petitioner from the office of Chairperson, the charge was to be handed over to a Member as directed by the State Government. The applicant has otherwise no direct lis against the petitioner nor the order dated 26-12-2007 (Annex. 14) came to be issued because of any vested right of the applicant or because of pronouncement on any of her rights vis-a-vis, or corresponding to, the rights of the petitioner.

The charge of the office of the Chairperson of the said Municipal Board came in the hands of the applicant Smt. Shakuntala Singhvi for the fortuitous circumstances that the State Government chose to remove the petitioner from such office and then, chose to nominate the applicant as the person to hold such charge as per the requirements of Section 69-A of the Act of 1959. There was no legal right otherwise existing in the applicants to hold the charge of the office of the Chairperson of the said Municipal Board nor any additional right came vesting in her because of being nominated by the State Government to hold the charge. The said applicant, not having any direct right so as to litigate against the petitioner so far subject- matter of this writ petition is concerned cannot be acceded a right to join this writ petition.

The prayer for quashing of the order dated 26-12-2007 (Annex. 14), whereby the applicant was nominated to hold the charge, is only a consequential relief that seems to have been incorporated so as to complete the frame of the petition and else, this Court is clearly of opinion that even if the said order Annexure-4 is not challenged nor anything is pronounced thereupon, the petitioner is very much entitled yet to question the legality of the order Annexure-12 as passed against her.

The basic and the core questions in this writ petition are related to the validity and legality of the order of removal of the petitioner; and that is essentially a matter between the petitioner and the State Government. The presence of the applicant does not appear necessary for effectual and complete adjudication of the questions involved in this writ petition and she cannot be said to be a necessary parry at all. As pointed out above, the applicant came to be handed over the charge only for the reason that the petitioner was ordered to be removed from the office and the applicant was nominated by the State Government to be the person to whom the charge was to be handed over.

However, for these reasons and circumstances, the applicant does not become even a proper party* in this writ petition because the matter directly and substantially in issue is to be determined only with reference to the submissions of the petitioner and the State Government.

Further, the learned counsel for the applicant has failed to justify his claim seeking impleadment except the submission that his presence is necessary to bring true and correct facts to the notice of this Court pertaining to irregularities committed by the petitioner. In this regard suffice is to say that this revision petition is directed against the appellate order dated 06.03.2020 and its legality and validity is to be examined on the basis of material available on record. This Court is convinced that presence of the applicant is not necessary for just and effective disposal of the controversy involved in the matter.

Resultantly, the application seeking impleadment is dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply a copy of the revision petition to Mr. Jai Raj Tantia, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 within couple of days. In S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 47/2020:

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply a copy of the revision petition in the office of Mr. S.S. Raghav, learned Additional Advocate General during course of the day.

List the matter on 22.09.2020.