Narayan Shukla, J. - (1.) Mr. Subhash Vidyarthi, learned Counsel for the sole Respondent raised objection against the parties, whereas those are the necessary and appropriate parties in the case. In support of his submission he has cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Udit Narain Singh v/s. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar and Anr., reported in AIR 1963 Supreme Court 786(Five Judges). He submits that whether the Court or the Tribunal are the necessary parties or not, has been summarised in para 12, which is reproduced hereunder: (12) To summarise in a writ of certiorari not only the tribunal or authority whose order is sought to be quashed but also parties in whose favour the said order is issued are necessary parties. But it is in the discretion of the court to add or implead proper parties for completely settling all the questions that may be involved in the controversy either suo motu or on the application of a party to the writ or an application filed at the instance of such proper party.
(2.) On the other hand, Mr. Seth, learned Senior Advocate, has placed reliance upon another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. Savitri Devi v/s. District Judge, Gorakhpur and Ors. reported in : (1999)2 SCC 577(Three Judges). The relevant paragraph 14 is reproduced hereunder: (14) Before parting with this case, it is necessary for us to point out one aspect of the matter which is rather disturbing. In the writ petition filed in the High Court as well as the special leave petition filed in this Court, the District Judge, Gorakhpur and the 4th Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gorakhpur are shown as Respondents and in the Special Leave petition, they are shown as contesting Respondents. There was no necessity for impleading the judicial officers who disposed of the matter in a civil proceeding when the writ petition was filed in the High Court; nor is there any justification for impleading them as parties in the special leave petition and describing them as contesting Respondents. We do not approve of the course adopted by the Petitioner which would cause unnecessary disturbance to the functions of the judicial officers concerned. They cannot be in any way equated to the officials of the Government. It is high time that the practice of impleading judicial officers disposing of civil proceedings as parties to the writ petitions under Article of the Constitution of India or special leave petitions under Article of the Constitution of India was stopped. We are strongly deprecating such a practice.
(3.) In the light of the aforesaid judgment, he submits that there is clear dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the effect that there is no necessity for impleading the judicial officers who dispose of a matter in civil proceeding when the writ petition was filed in the High Court nor is there any justification for impleading them as parties in the special leave petition and describing them as contesting Respondents. He also placed reliance upon the same very judgment relied by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties and invited the attention of this Court towards paragraphs 7 and 8 of the same, which are reproduced herein under: To answer the question raised it would be convenient at the outset to ascertain who are necessary or proper parties in a proceeding. The law on the subject is well settled: it is enough if we state the principal. 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. ...As a writ of certiorari will be granted to remove the record of proceedings of an inferior tribunal or authority exercising judicial or quasi -judicial acts, ex hypothesis it follows that the High Court in exercising its jurisdiction shall also act judicially in disposing of the proceedings before it. It is implicit in such a proceeding that a tribunal or authority which is directed to transmit the records must be a party in the writ proceeding, for, without giving notice to it, the record of proceedings cannot be brought to the High Court. It is said that in an appeal against the decree of a subordinate court, the court that passed the decree need not be made a party and on the same parity of reasoning it is contended that a tribunal need not also be made a party in a writ proceeding. But there is an essential distinction between an appeal against a decree of a subordinate court and a writ of certiorari to quash the order of a tribunal or authority: in the former, the proceedings are regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure and the court making the order is directly subordinate to the appellate court and ordinarily acts within its bounds, though sometimes wrongly or even illegally, but in the case of the latter, a writ of certiorari is issued to quash the order of a tribunal which is ordinarily outside the appellate or revisional jurisdiction of the Court and the order is set aside on the ground that the tribunal or authority acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. If such a tribunal or authority is not made party to the writ, it can easily ignore the order of the High Court quashing its order, for, not being a party, it will not be liable to contempt. In these circumstances, whoever else is a necessary party or not the authority or tribunal is certainly a necessary party to such a proceeding. In this case, the Board of Revenue and the Commissioner of Excise were rightly made parties in the writ petition.;