Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) AFTER hearing the parties at length the judgment was reserved in this matter on 9th August 2011. While drafting the judgment I noticed that Respondent No. 1 Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, is a Government Company wholly owned by State of U.P. The entire financial implication, in case the matter is decided against the Respondents, would fall upon the State of U.P. However, it has not been impleaded as one of the Respondents. Similarly the order dated 11.10.2010 (Annexure 29 to the writ petition) has been passed by the Commissioner Moradabad Division, Moradabad. He is a statutory appellate authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act 2003 but he has also not been impleaded as one of the Respondents. Some of the relevant authorities I may refer as hereunder.
(2.) IN a catena of decisions, this Court has held that the State of U.P. is a necessary party in a case like this and in case it is not impleaded, the writ petition suffers the defect of non -joinder of necessary party and is liable to be dismissed. Since this issue was not pointed out by Respondent's counsel during the course of argument, the Petitioner had No. occasion to submit any reply on this aspect. A Division Bench of this Court in Animesh Jain v. Home Secretary U.P. through State of U.P. and Anr., 2003 (52) ALR 333 held: Thus, we reach the inescapable conclusion that the writ is not maintainable against the Government officers or the employees of the State, it lies only against the State and if State is not impleaded, the writ is not maintainable.
(3.) A Division Bench of this Court in Ganga Ram v. Uttar Pradesh Bhumi Sudhar Nigam, Lucknow and Ors., (2003) RD -AH 529 held: Petition is liable to be dismissed as the State is not impleaded as a party as mandatorily required. (Vide Ranjeet Mal v. General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi and Anr. : AIR 1977 SC 1701; and Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of A.P. v. Collector & Ors. : (2003) 3 SCC 472.;