ORDER
Arun Kumar Dutta, J.
1. The Applicant, the Assistant Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Calcutta Zonal Unit, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (hereinafter referred to as Applicant) has, by the instant application, prayed the Court for leave to be added as a Party-Respondent to the instant Writ Proceedings and/or to be allowed to intervene in the instant Writ Proceedings, along with some other prayers made therein, contending, inter alia, that he has a direct interest in the subject matter of the goods in question which were attempted to be exported by the Writ Petitioner, M/s. Terai Overseas Limited (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner), in the facts and circumstances stated therein.
2. It is contended by the Applicant that if the goods in question are allowed to be examined by him in accordance with the provisions of Section 106 A of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) it would clearly reveal that the Petitioner had attempted to export the same, which do not match the description and/or declaration given before the Customs Authorities in the Shipping Bills submitted by it (Petitioner). Such examination would show that the Petitioner had deliberately declared and over-invoiced the said goods and had attempted to export the same illegally under a claim of drawback out of India in contravention of the provisions of the aforesaid Act, making the same (goods) liable to confiscation thereunder. It is neither open to the Petitioner to take back the goods which were attempted to be exported before allowing the Applicant to examine the same under the aforesaid provisions. It is further contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court by its order dated December 19,1995 had given liberty to “the parties to take appropriate directions from the Trial Court where the Writ Petition is pending and the Trial Court will pass such order as it may deem proper without being influenced by any order or direction contained in the impugned order.” Hence the instant application by the Applicant for being added as a party to the instant Writ Proceedings, since he is not only a proper party but a necessary party herein, and it is necessary and proper that the Writ Application be decided in his presence.
3. The application made by the Applicant is supported by the Respondents. It had been submitted by Mr. Sibdas Banerjee, the learned Counsel for the contending Respondents, that, in the facts and circumstances submitted on behalf of the Applicant, the Writ Application should be decided in his presence. 4. The application filed by the Applicant is vehemently opposed by the Petitioner contending, inter alia, that he (applicant) is neither a proper party nor a necessary party in the instant writ proceedings. He has neither any locus standi to be added as a Party-Respondent herein. His application is, therefore, liable to be rejected. 5. Before entering into the factual aspect of the application by the Applicant for being added as a Party-Respondent herein, I would feel inclined to deal with the legal aspect thereof for considering as to who could or could not be added as a party to a judicial proceedings, like the instant Writ Proceedings. Rule 53 of the Rules under Article 226 of the Constitution of India framed by the High Court reads as follows : "Save and except as provided by these rules and subject thereto, the procedure provided in the Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1980) in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings for issue of a Writ." 6. The Code of Civil Procedure has thus been made applicable to the Writ Proceedings. The circumstances under which a person can be added as a Party to a Suit has been provided in Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure which runs as follows :-
“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 questions involved in the suit, be added.”
7. The aforesaid provision being, what it is, a person whose presence is necessary to enable the Court to effect and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the Suit/Proceedings may be added as a Party.
8. In the leading English Case of Moser v. Marse, (1892) 1 C.H. 487 : 62 LT 570, Lindly L.J. has held that a party who is not directly interested in the issues between the Plaintiff and the defendant but is only indirectly or commercially affected cannot be added as a defendant because the Court has no jurisdiction under the relevant Rule to bring him on record even as a proper party. The position is no different under the Indian Law. The Supreme Court had laid down in Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Amar Begum, that “in a Suit relating to property in order that a person may be added as a party, he should have a direct interest, as distinct from a commercial interest in the subject matter of the litigation.” The Supreme Court in the case of Udit Narain Singh v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, has subsequently explained the meaning of a ‘necessary’ or ‘proper’ party as follows :-
“A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively; a proper officer 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.”
9. In Ramesh Hira Chand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, the Supreme Court has held as follows in Paragraph 14 thereof:
“It cannot be said that the main object of the rule is to prevent multiplicity of actions though it may incidentally have that effect. It is, therefore, necessary that the person must be directly or legally interested in the action in the answer, i.e., he can say that the litigation may lead to a result which will affect him legally that is by curtailing his legal rights. It is difficult to say that the rule contemplates joining as a defendant a person whose only object is to prosecute his own cause of action.”
10. A Division Bench of this Court in Mukund Shah v. Golden Polyester Industries Pvt. Limited, 1979 (1) C.L.J. 258, following the decision of the Supreme Court in the Razia Begum’s Case (supra) and some other decisions, has as well held that the Appellant having failed to establish that he was directly or legally interested in the subject-matter has no locus standi to apply for being impleaded as a Respondent in the Civil Rule.
11. Bearing the principles of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions in mind, let us now turn to the factual aspect of the matter. In order to consider whether the Applicant is a proper party or a necessary party or has any locus standi to be added as a Party-Respondent herein, as prayed for by him, it is necessary to look to the nature and scope of the Writ application and the reliefs sought for therein.
12. The Writ Petitioner in the instant Writ application has prayed the Court for issue of “a writ of and/or order and/or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents and each of them, their servants and/or agents to forthwith endorse the Gate Pass issued by the Calcutta Port Trust authorities being annexure “C” hereof and allow passing out of the goods covered by the said Gate Pass and to refrain from taking any steps interfering with the movement of the said goods from out of the Calcutta Port and to act in accordance with law,” along with the other reliefs prayed for, for the reasons stated and on the grounds made out therein.
13. With the Writ Petition, such as it is, it is mainly directed .against the Customs Authorities raising the issues as to whether the goods in question are export goods, and whether the Customs Authorities have any jurisdiction to detain the same any further, in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Writ Petition does not appear to contain any allegation against the Department of Revenue Intelligence (for short D.R.I.). No issue has either been raised therein requiring presence of the D.R.I. in the Proceedings. Nor, has any relief been sought for against them. Having regard to the nature and scope of the Writ Application and the reliefs sought for therein, the D.R.I. does not seem to be either a proper party or a necessary party in the instant proceedings, having no direct or legal interest in the subject matter thereof. It would be pertinent to note in this context that the Applicant has also prayed for being allowed to inspect and examine the goods attempted to be exported by the Writ Petitioner and be permitted to proceed in accordance with law, if the proper Officer is satisfied that the provisions of the aforesaid Act have been violated or infringed upon, in. terms of prayers (b) and (c) thereto, for the reasons stated therein. The Applicant clearly appears to have prayed for being added as a Party-Respondent herein for the aforesaid purpose. But the Applicant could hardly be allowed to be added as a Party-Respondent herein whose only object is to prosecute his own course of action in the manner prayed for, as indicated above, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (supra).
14. It would further oddly appear from the Supplementary Affidavit filed by the Applicant, affirmed on January 16, 1996, that one Kausik Das, Intelligence Officer, attached to the Office of the D.R.I., had directed the Shed-in-Charge, Calcutta Port, by a letter to stop delivery of two Containers in connection with an alleged enquiry undertaken by the D.R.I. The said letter, as it is, does not indicate the direct involvement of the Applicant. No copy of the said letter either appears to have been served upon the Petitioner. Another document disclosed therein is an undated letter from the said Kausik Das to the Section Officer, which does neither seem to indicate that the D.R.I. is in any way involved in the matter. There is no material on record either to show that the Applicant has passed any order and/or has issued any direction in the matter for which he needs to be added as a Party-Respondent in the writ proceedings. It would also seem significant and observable to note that the Director has not come forward for being added as a Party-Respondent herein. One of the Subordinate Officers of the Department, the Applicant, an Assistant Director, has only come forward for being added as a party herein. The aforesaid two letters by the said Kaushik Das being, what they are, the presence of the Applicant does not seem to be required for effectually and completely adjudicating upon and settling all the questions involved in the instant Writ Proceedings. That apart, the Union of India, through the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, appears to be very much a Party herein, being the Respondent No. 3 in the instant Writ application, along with the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, and the Assistant Collector of Customs, N.S. Dock, Calcutta Port Trust. The D.R.I, is one of the Wings/Branches of the Department of Revenue under the Ministry of Finance. The Department of Revenue, as already indicated above, is already before the Court as the Respondent No. 3 in the Writ Application. It is not understandable how the D.R.I, could then independently claim to be added as a Party-Respondent herein for completely and effectually adjudicating the issues raised in the writ application ! The Applicant, an Assistant Director, is again one of the numerous Officers of the D.R.I., who claims to be personally added as a Party-Respondent herein. He is not the Head of the Department of the Office of the D.R.I. The Director has neither prayed for being added as a Party-Respondent herein. There is nothing either on record to show that the Applicant has been authorised by the Director to apply for being added as a Party-Respondent herein. It is, therefore, difficult to find under what authority the applicant claims to be added as a Party-Respondent herein! His personal interest or involvement or concern in the matter is neither apparent from the records. There is nothing either on record to show that the instant writ application, in view of the nature and scope thereof, cannot be effectually and completely adjudicated upon in the absence of the Applicant. He could hardly, therefore, be held to be either a proper party or a necessary party in the instant Writ Proceedings.
15. It had sadly been contended by the Applicant that the Petitioner itself had added him as a Party in the Appeal before the Division Bench of this Court, and he is as such a necessary and proper party in the instant Writ Proceedings. But it would pretty clearly appear from the materials on record that it was at the instance of the Applicant and on his own intervention, though not a Party-Respondent in the Writ Application, that S.B. Sinha, J. had by order dated 12th December, 1995 modified the Court’s earlier order dated 10th December, 1995. Being aggrieved by the said subsequent order (dated 12-12-1995) the Petitioner had preferred appeal thereagainst, and was constrained to make the Applicant a party-Respondent therein (in the appeal), in the aforesaid circumstances. Aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench of this Court, an S.L.P. was filed thereagainst in which the Applicant was one of the Petitioners (in the S.L.P. before the Hon’ble Supreme Court). That is how he (Applicant) had intervened in the matter of his own. With things as they are, the Petitioner does not appear to have ever impleaded the Applicant as a party-Respondent in the Writ Application. The mere fact that the Applicant had chosen to intervene in the matter of his own, and was one of the Petitioners in the S.L.P. before the Supreme Court, does neither seem to make him either a proper party or a necessary party to the instant Writ Proceedings, regard being had to the nature and scope thereof and the reliefs sought for therein.
16. The learned Advocate for the Applicant had referred to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Terai Tea Company Limited v. Kumkum Mittal and Ors., A.I.R. 1994 Calcutta 198 in support of his plea for being added as a party-Respondent herein. But unhappily for him, the said Judgment/Order appears to have been set aside by the Supreme Court on Appeal being preferred by the New Red Bank Tea Company Private Limited, . The Supreme Court has reiterated therein its earlier pronouncement in the case of Razia Begum (supra) and has held, inter alia, that in order that a person may be added as a party, he should have a ‘direct interest’ in the subject matter of the litigation. The Supreme Court has also reaffirmed therein its earlier decision in Ramesh Hira Chand Kundanmal (supra), which has already been discussed above. In this context, it would also be pertinent to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. C.S. Patel, where the Writ Petitioner had challenged the order of the State Government acquiring a property for the benefit of the Municipal Corporation. The order of acquisition was set aside without passing any order against the Municipal Corporation. The Supreme Court has held therein that although the property in question was sought to be acquired by the State Government for use by the Municipal Corporation, but since no relief was claimed against the Municipal Corporation, it could not be aggrieved by the order, and the appeal by the Municipal Corporation was not thus maintainable.
17. In view of the discussions above and in view of the fact that the Court’s earlier order dated 10th December, 1995 still stands, not having been interfered with either by the Division Bench of this Court in appeal, nor by the Supreme Court, the application of the Applicant for being added as a Party Respondent herein could neither be entertained. The aforesaid order of this Court dated 10th December, 1995 not having been interfered with by the Division Bench of this Court on appeal, or by the Supreme Court, could neither be modified at this stage at the instance of the Applicant, as prayed for.
18. In the premises above, the Applicant does not seem to me to be either a “proper party” or a “necessary party” in the instant Writ Proceedings. In the absence of any direct, legal, or proprietary interest in the subject-matter of the instant Writ Proceedings, he could neither be held to have any locus standi to be added as a party-Respondent herein, as prayed for, in the facts and circumstances amply and made clear above. That being so, the application filed by the Applicant for being added as a party-Respondent herein could hardly be entertained, and be accordingly rejected without any order as to costs. The other prayers made therein by him could neither be entertained as such, and be also accordingly rejected.
19. This order, however, shall not debar the Authorities concerned from taking any step in the relevant matter according to law, if not otherwise barred.
20. All parties shall act on a xerox signed copy of this judgment and order upon the usual undertaking.