Guru Singh Sabha, a society vs State of Sikkim and ors

Sri Guru Singh Sabha, a Society, registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961 having its office in West Bengal has filed the

Writ Petition against the State of Sikkim through the Secretary, Ecclesiastical Department, the District Collector and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,

North Sikkim and the Lachen Dzumsa.

The Petitioner contends that in the mid eighties Sikhs in the Indian Army and Members of other professionals collected funds and built a Gurudwara

at Gurudongmar Lake and placed the Nishan Sahib there. Since then the Gurudwara has been open for public to offer regular prayers and the

Government of Sikkim has always issued permission to pilgrims wanting to visit. It is alleged that on 16.08.2017 the “Dzumsa†with the help and

assistance of the local administration and more particularly the Sub-Divisional Magistrate removed the holy Guru Granth Sahib Ji, uprooted the Nishan

Sahib, dismantled all internal furniture’s and removed the holy items from the Gurudwara premises and placed it on the road. Being aggrieved by

the said act and the failure of the State in taking any steps against the conduct of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the “Dzumsa†the present

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been preferred. The Writ Petition seeks the restoration of the Guru Granth Sahib Ji, the Nishan

Sahib and a direction to fix all internal furniture and other holy items in the Gurudwara as it was prior to 16.08.2017. The Petitioner seeks a further

direction upon the State-Respondents particularly the State of Sikkim through the Ecclesiastical Department and the District Collector to refrain from

dismantling the Gurudwara. The Writ Petition also seeks a direction upon the Respondents to certify and transmit all records pertaining to the instant

case. A writ of prohibition is also prayed for prohibiting the State of Sikkim through the Ecclesiastical Department, the District Collector and the Sub-

Divisional Magistrate their servants, agents and/or assigns from taking any steps to dismantle the Gurudwara.

An additional affidavit has also been filed by the Petitioner. In the said affidavit it is stated that the State-Respondent has plans to build a

“Gumpaâ€​ at the site as has been reported in local newspapers and thus the Petitioner apprehends that the Gurudwara would be demolished.

The impleaded Respondents have filed their counter-affidavits. The District Collector has denied the involvement of the District administration in

the alleged removal. The State of Sikkim through the Ecclesiastical Department has provided the background of the dispute regarding the construction

of the Gurudwara near the Gurudongmar Lake on reserved forest land. The “Dzumsaâ€​ opposes the building of the Gurudwara by the Army.

On 24.03.2018 an application for impleadment of PCCF-Secretary, Forest, Environment and Wildlife Management Department of the Government

of Sikkim has been filed. In the said application reference is made to a report by the Wildlife Circle of the Forest, Environment and Wildlife

Management Department of a survey conducted at Chho Lhamu, Gurudongmar Tso, Gyamtsona and other areas of the plateau during 2nd to 6th

December 1997 pointing out about a newly constructed Gurudwara. The application for impleadment also refers to exchanges between the

Department and the army regarding the construction of the Gurudwara in the reserved forest. It is the case of the Applicant that the army activities

within the Gurudongmar Lake and its surrounding areas violate the forest (Conservation Act, 1980) and prior permission has not been obtained under

Section 2 of the said Act. It is pointed out that in the counter-affidavit filed by the State-Respondent a preliminary objection of non-joinder of the

Applicant as a necessary party had been taken. A topo-sheet map showing the location of the Gurudongmar Lake in the reserved forest area is also

filed therewith. The Applicant pleads that the Applicant is a necessary party, the application is bonafide and the impleadment of the Applicant would

not change the nature and character of the Writ Petition and no prejudice would be caused to the Petitioner as well as the private Respondent.

The Petitioner has filed a reply dated 18.04.2018 to the said application. In the said reply the Petitioner pleads that the Writ Petition has been filed

for a limited purpose of complaining about the gross violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of India by the State-Respondents regarding the illegal

acts committed on 16.08.2017. The said reply also states that the Gurudwara at the Gurudongmar Lake has been present for more than 20 years and

it was well within the knowledge of the State-Respondents.

Heard the Applicant, the Petitioner as well as the Respondents. Mr. Karma Thinlay Namgyal, learned Senior Government Advocate for the

Applicant drew the attention of this Court to the very first prayer to the Writ Petition seeking a direction upon the State-Respondents from refraining

or from doing any act and conduct to dismantle the structure of the Gurudwara at Gurudongmar Lake and submit that since admittedly the Gurudwara

is constructed on reserved forest land the Applicant was both a necessary and a proper party. Dr. Navin Barik the learned Counsel for the Petitioner

on the other hand would contest the application and submit that the present Writ Petition is limited to the controversy over the incident of 16.08.2017

and the Applicant was seeking to place unnecessary facts before this Court in order to expand its scope and derail the purpose of the Writ Petition.

He would also submit that the Applicant was in fact trying to get over the period of limitation on their inaction to dismantle the Gurudwara which has

been inexistence for more than 20 years. The Petitioner would submit that in the circumstances the Applicant was neither a necessary party nor a

proper party. The Petitioner would also rely upon various judgment of the Supreme Court for the said purpose which shall be examined now.

In re: Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. (1992) 2 SCC 524 the Supreme Court would hold:

“6. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 gives a wide discretion to the Court to meet every case of defect of parties and is not affected by the inaction of the

plaintiff to bring the necessary parties on record. The question of impleadment of a party has to be decided on the touchstone of Order 1 Rule 10

which provides that only a necessary or a proper party may be added. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively. A

proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the

question involved in the proceeding. The addition of parties is generally not a question of initial jurisdiction of the Court but of a judicial discretion

which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case.â€​

xxxxxxxxxxxx

“8. The case really turns on the true construction of the rule in particular the meaning of the words “whose presence before the Court may be

necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suitâ€. The Court is

empowered to join a person whose presence is necessary for the prescribed purpose and cannot under the rule direct the addition of a person whose

presence is not necessary for that purpose. If the inter-vener has a cause of action against the plaintiff relating to the subject matter of the existing

action, the Court has power to join the intervener so as to give effect to the primary object of the order which is to avoid multiplicity of actions.â€​

In re: Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal & Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 733 the Supreme Court would hold:

“16. That apart, from a plain reading of the expression used in sub-rule (2) Order 1 Rule 10 CPC “all the questions involved in the suit†it is

abundantly clear that the legislature clearly meant that the controversies raised as between the parties to the litigation must be gone into only, that is to

say, controversies with regard to the right which is set up and the relief claimed on one side and denied on the other and not the controversies which

may arise between the plaintiff-appellant and the defendants inter se or questions between the parties to the suit and a third party. In our view,

therefore, the court cannot allow adjudication of collateral matters so as to convert a suit for specific performance of contract for sale into a

complicated suit for title between the plaintiff-appellant on one hand and Respondents 2 and 3 and Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 on the other. This

addition, if allowed, would lead to a complicated litigation by which the trial and decision of serious questions which are totally outside the scope of the

suit would have to be gone into. As the decree of a suit for specific performance of the contract for sale, if passed, cannot, at all, affect the right, title

and interest of Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 in respect of the contracted property and in view of the detailed discussion made hereinearlier, Respondents

1 and 4 to 11 would not, at all, be necessary to be added in the instant suit for specific performance of the contract for sale.â€​

In re: Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Private Limited & Ors. (2010) 7 SCC 417 the Supreme

Court would hold:

“13. The general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is that the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the persons against whom he

wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief. Consequently, a person who is not a party has no

right to be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. But this general rule is subject to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil

Procedure (“the Codeâ€​, for short), which provides for impleadment of proper or necessary parties. The said sub-rule is extracted below:

“10. (2) Court may strike out or add parties.â€"The court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either

party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just,

order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to

have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and

completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.â€​

The said provision makes it clear that a court may, at any stage of the proceedings (including suits for specific performance), either upon or even

without any application, and on such terms as may appear to it to be just, direct that any of the following persons may be added as a party: (a) any

person who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant, but not added; or (b) any person whose presence before the court may be necessary in

order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the suit. In short, the court is given the

discretion to add as a party, any person who is found to be a necessary party or proper party.

A “necessary party†is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by

the court. If a “necessary party†is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A “proper party†is a party who, though not a

necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in

the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary

party, the court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of the plaintiff. The fact that a person is likely to secure a right/interest in a suit

property, after the suit is decided against the plaintiff, will not make such person a necessary party or a proper party to the suit for specific

performance.â€​

In re: Baluram v. P. Chellathangam & Ors. AIR 2015 SC 1264 the Supreme Court would rely upon its judgment in re: Mumbai International Airport

(Supra) and hold that the Appellant therein could not be held to be a stranger being beneficiary of the trust property and thus the Trial Court was

justified in impleading him as a party.

In re: Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadiya v. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya & Ors. (2017) 9 SCC 700 the Supreme Court would hold:

“10. Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code enables the court to add any person as a party at any stage of the proceedings, if the person whose presence in

court is necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Avoidance

of multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the objects of the said provision. Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code empowers the court to substitute a party in

the suit who is a wrong person with a right person. If the court is satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake, and also that it

is necessary for the determination of the real matter in controversy to substitute a party in the suit, it may direct it to be done. When the court finds

that in the absence of the persons sought to be impleaded as a party to the suit, the controversy raised in the suit cannot be effectively and completely

settled, the court would do justice by impleading such persons. Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code gives wide discretion to the court to deal with such a

situation which may result in prejudicing the interests of the affected party if not impleaded in the suit, and where the impleadment of the said party is

necessary and vital for the decision of the suit.â€​

Rule 101 of the Sikkim High Court (Practice & Procedure) Rules, 2011 (the P.P. Rules) provides:

“101. Joinder of respondents- Every person who is likely to be affected in any manner by the result of a petition shall be joined as a respondent

thereto. Any petition in which a necessary party is not imp leaded shall be liable to be dismissed.â€​

Rule 101 of the P.P. Rules provides that every person likely to be affected in any manner by the result of the petition shall be joined as a

Respondent thereto and any petition in which a necessary party is not impleaded is liable to be dismissed.

It is not in dispute that the Gurudwara has been built by the army near the Gurudongmar Lake. As per the State-Respondents as well as the

Applicant the Gurudwara has been built by the army on reserved forest land. The Applicant seeks a prayer of prohibition upon the State of Sikkim

through the Ecclesiastical Department, the District Collector and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of the North District not to dismantle the Gurudwara.

Any activity if in a reserved forest area would necessarily need the permission and involvement of the Applicant. To be able to issue an effective writ

of prohibition commanding the State-Respondents to refrain from dismantling the Gurudwara it is necessary to hear the Applicant since it is stated that

the army had constructed the Gurudwara on reserved forest land. There is a dispute between the contesting parties regarding the length of time the

Gurudwara has been in existence at the Gurudongmar Lake. It would be essential to get the version of the Applicant on whose land, as pleaded, the

Gurudwara has been constructed by the army. It is also necessary to implead the Applicant to enable this Court to effectively and completely

adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the present Writ Petition. Writ of prohibition upon the State through the Ecclesiastical

Department, District Collector and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate only may not suffice to give complete relief to the Petitioner, if found to be desirable,

without a writ against the Applicant on whose land the Gurudwara is said to have been constructed by the army as well.

This is a Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner. Merely because the Applicant is impleaded and heard in the present proceedings would not, as

apprehended by the Petitioner, give the Applicant a fresh cause of action if the action which may be taken by the Applicant is barred by limitation. It is

true that the Petitioner is the dominus litis and may choose the parties against whom it wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person

against whom he does not seek any relief. However, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings order the name of any party who ought to have

been joined, whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle

all the questions involved in the writ petition, be added. This is the essence of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which is also

reflected in Rule 101 of the P.P. Rules, 2011.

In the circumstances, the Application for impleadment of the PCCF-Secretary, Forest Environment & Wildlife Management Department,

Government of Sikkim as a respondent is allowed. Consequently the array of the Respondents may be amended accordingly and the Applicant is

permitted to file a counter- affidavit if so desired.