Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Union Of India And Ors. v. Central Administrative Tribunal Alld. And Ors. - WRIT - A No. 20210 of 1997 [2006] RD-AH 136 (2 January 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.20210 of 1997

Union of India & Ors


Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad & Ors

Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.

(By the Court)

This writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and orders of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal dated 13/12/1996 and 28/4/1997. This petition was filed by the Union of India and was entertained by passing a detailed order on 29/5/1998 holding it to be maintainable as the preliminary objection has been raised by Shri Vikas Budhwar regarding its maintainability in view of the judgement in L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors (1997) 3 SCC 261 decided on 18/3/1997 for the reason that the review petition has been decided by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 28/4/1997 and therefore the contention that prior to L. Chandrakumar's judgment the application was  decided on 13/12/1996 and only the appeal was maintainable before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the reason that review petition was pending in the judgment of L. Chandrakumar. The Union of India has filed this petition raising the preliminary ground that the Original Application filed by the respondent nos. 2 to 15 was not maintainable as the application was filed for fixing their seniority over and above certain persons but they were not impleaded in the said application. The matter was decided by the Division Bench of the learned Tribunal and  there was a difference of opinion. Thereafter the matter was referred to the Third Member at the stage of pendency of the case. Two applications bearing Nos. 1432 of 1996 and 835 of 1996 were filed by some persons submitting that if the applications filed by the respondent nos. 2 to 15 are allowed they would be adversely affected and therefore they were necessary party. However their applications were rejected.

The main contention in this petition is as to whether the applications filed by the said respondent nos. 2 to 15 was maintainable. In view of the proviso to Order 1 Rule 9 which was added by amendment act 104/76, non joinder of necessary party is fatal. Though only some of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure has been made applicable before the Central Administrative Tribunal by virtue of the provisions of Section 22 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.

It is not disputed by Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 that the principle enshrined therein in the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable before the Writ Court and it is mandatorily required to implead the necessary parties.

A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 786, has held that any person who may be adversely affected by the order of this Court acting as party has a right to disobey the order of this Court as it has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. In that case, the question arose as to whether the Board of Revenue against whose judgment the writ petition was filed was a necessary party or not. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the  Board of Revenue has a right to enforce its judgment and order in contempt proceedings even if the judgment has been set-aside by the High Court in writ jurisdiction as the Tribunal had not been a party before the writ Court. It was a necessary party. Thus, the ratio of the said judgment is that the order which adversely affects a person and who was not a party before the Court remains inexecutable and unenforceable against the said person.

In such a case no order adversely affecting any person can be passed behind his back. (Vide Prabodh Verma & Ors Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, AIR 1985, SC 167; Ishwar Singh & Ors Vs. Kuldeep Singh & Ors, 1995 (Supp) 1, SCC 179; Bhagwanti & Ors. Vs. Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana & Anr., 1995 (Supp) 2 SCC 663; Central Bank of India Vs. S. Satyam & Ors., (1996) 5 SCC 419; J. Jose Dhanapaul Vs. S. Thomas & Ors., (1996) 3 SCC 587; Arun Tewari & Ors. Vs. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 331; Azar Hasan & Ors. Vs. District Judge, Saharanpur & Ors, (1998) 3 SCC 246; Ram Swarup & Ors. Vs. S.N. Maira & Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 738; Chandrakishore Singh Vs. State of Manipur & Ors., (1999) 8 S.C.C. 287; Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani & Ors. Vs. District & Sessions Judge, Nagpur & Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 606; Nirmala Anand Vs. Advent Corporation (P) Ltd. & Ors., (2002) 5 SCC 481; M.P. Rajya Sahkari Bank Maryadit Vs. Indian Coffee Workers' Cooperative Society Ltd. & Ors (2002) 9 SCC 204; and Ramrao & Ors. Vs. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association & Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 76).

In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the application filed by the said respondent nos. 2 to 15 before the learned Tribunal itself were not maintainable. Rejection of the applications for impleadment, as referred to above, was also not permissible.

In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal should not have entertained the petition unless the necessary parties i.e. respondent nos. 2 to 15 had been impleaded by the respondent no.1-applicant himself. More so, rejecting their application for impleadment by the Tribunal could not be justified as those persons were going to be adversely affected after the application filed by the respondent no.1 was going to be allowed finally. The impleadment of a party is permissible at any stage in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bal Niketan Nursery School Vs. Kesari Prasad, AIR 1987 SC 1970, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that a party can impleaded at any stage.

In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that as the judgment and order of the Tribunal passed on the application filed by the respondent no. 1 cannot be given effect to against the respondent nos. 2 to 15, the said judgment and order remains unenforceable and unexecutable so far as the said respondents are concerned and the judgment and orders are liable to be set-aside as such.

Thus petition succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and orders dated 13/12/1996 and 28/4/1997 are hereby set-aside. No costs.  




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.