TAPENDRA SINGH RANA Vs. MUSSOORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this intra court appeal, the applicant before the learned Single Judge had filed an application for his impleadment in the Writ Petition (MS) No. 1444 of 2020. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant before the learned Single Judge that on the basis of his complaint, an action of demolition and of passing of the order under 27 (1) read with Sec. 28 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 was taken against the petitioner. Hence, it was further argued by him that in the capacity of being a complainant, he would be a necessary party to be heard in that matter for the purpose of effective adjudication.

(2.) The learned Single Judge took into consideration the fact that the Act meant only for the purposes of regulating the development process in the urban areas by the Authorities within the norms and bye-laws, as framed by the Development Authority and if there is any violation of it, it is rather the Development Authority, who has got absolute right to take action and which has been actually taken in the instant case. The learned Single Judge further took note of the fact that different Authorities viz. Original, Appellate and Revisional Authorities had concurrently decided the issue against the petitioner, which is under challenge in the writ petition before him. The learned Single Judge while adjudicating the issue emanating from the impugned orders, which are under challenge before him, was of the view that complainant at the behest of whom the proceedings have been taken place is not a necessary party to be impleaded in the writ petition because participation in the proceedings may not be relevant because in his absence, the decision to be given to the orders under challenge could still be judicially scrutinized by the Court.

(3.) It is apparent from the record that present appellant was not a party either before the Original Authority or Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority and for the first time, he came and filed the application for impleadment in the writ petition which has been rejected by the learned Single Judge. It is also apparent from the record that Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (as applicable to the High Court of Uttarakhand) provides for Special Appeal, which reads as under: