LAWS(GAU)-1982-8-14

SHRI PRITAM SINGH Vs. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, NORTH-EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY LUMDING AND ORS.

Decided On August 26, 1982
Shri Pritam Singh Appellant
V/S
The Divisional Railway Manager, North -East Frontier Railway Lumding And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of removal of the Petitioner passed by the Divisional Electrical Engineer North -East Frontier Railway, Lumding. The Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Railway Manager, North -East Frontier Railway, Lumding which was also rejected.

(2.) AT the time of hearing Mr. A.R. Barooah, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, takes a preliminary point that as the Union of India is not impleaded as a party this petition is Incompetent. According to the learned Counsel the Union of India is a necessary party and as the Union of India is not made party this petition cannot proceed. In this connection the learned Counsel refers to a decision of the Supreme -Court in Shri Ranjeet Mal v. General Manager Northern Railway : (1977) 1 S.C.C 484, where a similar question came up for consideration by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as to whether the Union of India is a necessary party. In that case, the Appellant was removed from service by the Railway authorities against which he preferred an application under Article 226 the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court held that as the Union of India was now uploaded as a party the petition was not maintainable, against which there was Letters Patent appeal where the Division, Bench also affirmed the decision of the learned Single Judge. The Petitioner in that case being aggrieved went up in appeal before the Supreme Court where their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that Union of India is a necessary party in a case of this nature and as the Union of India was not made a party the petition of the Appellant was rightly rejected. The reasons given by their Lordships of the Supreme Court read as follows:

(3.) IN the above view of the matter we find that this petition is not maintainable and accordingly it is rejected. The Rule is discharged.