- (1.) THIS matter comes up on an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the writ petition.
(2.) FOR the reasons mentioned in the application, the application is allowed. The amended writ petition has already been filed, the same be taken on record. List the case on 13-8-2012. Till then the interim order shall continue. Two other applications have been filed by one Girdhari and another Hemraj under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment in the writ petition. The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the order impugned dated 11-7-2012 in the writ petition (as amended) before this court, where under the petitioner has been removed from the post of Sarpanch, had been passed after enquiry initiated at the instance of the applicants. It is submitted that the petitioner has herself in the writ petition attributed her removal from the post of Sarpanch following complaints by the applicants. It is submitted that it was at the instance of the applicants than an enquiry was initiated with regard to the misuse of statutory powers by her under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. It is submitted that the applicants thus have an interest in having the order of removal passed on 11-7-2012 sustained and in this view of the matter the applicants would be affected by the outcome of the writ petition, and therefore, they ought to be impleaded in the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner has opposed the applications of the applicants and relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector Rajgad [AIR 2012 SC 1339], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has enunciated the law in detail about the right of a party to be heard in a proceeding before any court. Reference in this regard may have to para 44 of the judgment, which is reproduced here under for the facility of reference:- 44. Shri Chintaman Raghunath Gharat, Ex-President was the complainant, thus, at the most, he could lead the evidence as a witness. He could not claim the status of an adversial litigant. The complainant cannot be the party to the lis. A legal right is an averment of entitlement arising out of law. In fact, it is a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. Thus, a person who suffers from legal injury can only challenge the act or omission. There may be some harm or loss that may not be wrongful in the eyes of law because it may not result in injury to a legal right or legally protected interest of the complainant but juridically harm of this description is called damnum sine injuria. The complainant has to establish that he has been deprived of or denied of a legal right and he has sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In case he has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on, he cannot be heard as a party in a lis. A fanciful or sentimental grievance may not be sufficient to confer a locus standi to sue upon the individual. There must be injuria or a legal grievance which can be appreciated and not a stat pro ratione valuntas reasons i.e. a claim devoid of reasons. Under the garb of being necessary party, a person cannot be permitted to make a case as that of general public interest. A person having a remote interest cannot be permitted to become a party in the lis, as the person wants to become a party in a case, has to establish that he has a proprietary right which has been or is threatened to be violated, for the reason that a legal injury creates a remedial right in the injured person. A person cannot be heard as a party unless he answers the description of aggrieved party. (Vide: Adi Pherozshah Gandhi v. H.M. Seervai, Advocate General of Maharashtra, AIR 1971 SC 385; Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and Ors., AIR 1976 SC 578; Maharaj Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., AIR 1976 SC 2602; Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal and Ors., (2002) 1 SCC 33; and Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tosiba Appliances Company and Ors., (2008) 10 SCC 766). The High Court failed to appreciate that it was a case of political rivalry. The case of the appellant has not been considered in correct perspective at all." Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material available on record.
(3.) THE prayer made in the writ petition by the petitioner is as under:- It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be accept and allowed and by an appropriate writ, order and direction the entire record relating to this writ petition may kindly be called for and; 1. the impugned inquiry dated 16-12-2011 (Annexure-12) conducted by the Additional Collector, recommendation letter dated 7-6-2011 (Annexure-15) issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur and approval/ confirmation letter dated 4-7-2012 (Annexure-1) may kindly be declared illegal, unjust and unconstitutional. 1A. further the removal order dated 11-7-2012 (Annex.-19) passed by the Divisional Commissioner may kindly be quashed and set aside. 2. further the respondent may be directed to not to cause any obstruction in the way of petitioner from performing the functioning the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Kochhor, Panchayat Samiti Dantaramgarh, Sikar and not interfered into the day to day proceedings of Gam Panchayat Kochhor. 3. The respondent may kindly be direct to provide assistance to remove the encroachment on the "Charagah Land" of Khasra No.1240 measuring 7,3700 hectare, khasra No.1357/2551 and 1357/2745 situated at village Kochhor. 4. Any other relief, to which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit and proper in favour of the petitioner, may kindly be granted to the petitioner. 5. Further the cost of the litigation may kindly be awarded to the petitioner. A bare look at the prayer clause of the writ petition indicates that the orders sought to be impugned in the writ petition are that of the Additional Collector and the Divisional Commissioner Jaipur. No relief has been sought against the applicants nor any directions are required to be passed against the applicants. There is no reason for this court to imagine nor in fact has been alleged or argued that the State Government whose orders are effectively under challenge will not defend in this writ petition and the impugned orders therein with seriousness. Further, it is trite that the petitioner is dominus litis, and it is for him to choose parties he seeks to litigate against. In my considered view, in the facts of the present case, the applicants obviously are political adversaries of the petitioner and they cannot be allowed to intrude in petitioner's litigation against this State and transform the court into a political arena. ;