PETITIONER: STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: V.P. DUGGAL & OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT30/07/1976 BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH UNTWALIA, N.L. CITATION: 1977 AIR 196 1977 SCR (1) 96 1976 SCC (3) 715 ACT: Practice and procedure--Whether High Court can direct a Minister to be impleaded as a party and file his personal affidavit. HEADNOTE: The respondent challenged the validity of a Government Notification, and also the Minister's order upholding the same. At the hearing, the High Court directed that the concerned Minister be impleaded as a party, and file his personal affidavit. Challenging the directions, the appel- lant contended before this Court, that the allegations against the Minister did not disclose any personal ammus on his part, and he was not liable to be added as a party or to file his affidavit. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court, HELD: The direction for the impleading of the Minister as a party was given by the High Court with a view to ap- praise the Minister of the allegations made in the petition and thus to afford him an opportunity of controverting those .allegations, if .he so deemed proper. We decline to interfere.It is essentially for the Minister concerned to decide in the light of the allegations made in the petition as to whether he should or should not file an affidavit. [97 E-F] JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
1207 of 1975.
(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated 5-8-1975 of the Punjab & Haryana High
Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 459/75).
J.S. Wasu, Adv. General, Punjab and O.P.
Sharma, for the appellants.
V.C. Mahajan and S.S. Khanduja, for respondent No.
1. P.K. Pillai, for respondent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KHANNA, J.–This is an appeal by special leave by the
State of Punjab against the order of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court, whereby at was directed that the Minister in
charge of Irrigation Department be impleaded as a party in
the writ petition filed by V.P. Duggal respondent. The
Minister was also directed to file his affidavit.
In the writ petition filed by him, Duggal respondent
challenged notification dated January 29, 1974 fixing the
seniority of the engineers n the Irrigation Department of
the Punjab Government. During the course of the heating of
the writ petition, an order was made by the High Court on
November 18, 1974 that the Minister concerned might give a
personal hearing to the parties and thereafter pass the
necessary order in the matter. The Minister concerned
thereafter heard the parties and made a speaking order on
February 18, 1975 affirming the earlier seniority list. The
writ petition was thereafter amended, and
97
in the amended petition, Duggal respondent also challenged
the validity of .the later order of February 18, 1975.
At the resumed hearing of the writ petition, the learned
Judge hearing the petition directed that the Minister con-
cerned be impleaded as a party in the petition, as in the
view of the learned Judge, allegation had been made against
the Minister that he had deviated from the normal procedure
while passing the impugned order dated February 18, 1975
inasmuch as he had dealt with the matter directly and by-
passed the Secretary of the Department. Direction was also
issued that the Minister should file an affidavit in regard
to the allegations made in the petition.
At the hearing of the appeal before us, the learned Advo-
cate General for the State of Punjab has contended that the
allegations made in the amended petition do not disclose any
personal animus on the part of the Minister concerned and
as such the High Court was in error in directing that the
Minister be impleaded as a party. The learned Advocate-
General has also assailed the direction of the High Court in
sofar as the Minister has been called upon to file his
personal affidavit.As against that, Mr. Mahajan on behalf of
Duggal respondent has urged that looking to the facts of
the case if the High Court came to the conclusion that the
Minister was a necessary or proper party, this Court should
not interfere in the matter.
We have given the matter our consideration, and it seems to
us that the direction for the impleading of the Minister as
a party was given by the High Court with a view to apprise
the Minister of the allegations made in the petition and
thus to afford him an opportunity of controverting those
allegations, if he so deemed proper. Taking the totality of
the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not feel
persuaded to interfere with the order of the High Court
adding the Minister as a party to the writ petition. The
High Court was, however, in our opinion in error in direct-
ing that the Minister concerned should file his affidavit.
It is essentially for the Minister concerned to decide in
the light of the allegations made in the petition as to
whether he should or should not file an affidavit. We,
therefore, decline to interfere with the order made by the
High Court insofar as it has directed that the Minister be
impleaded as a party. The other part of the order whereby
the Minister concerned was directed to file his personal
affidavit is set aside. The appeal shall stand disposed of
accordingly. The parties in the circumstances shall bear
their own costs.
M.R. Appeal partly
allowed.
98
