SANGEETA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Suresh Pratap Singh, learned counsel, has moved an application for impleadment on behalf of one Bhola Prasad who is stated to be the complainant. In support of his prayer for impleadment, Sri Singh has placed reliance upon the decisions rendered by a learned Judge in Rajendra Singh S/O Sri Ram Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2008 (5) ADJ 99 and Akhlao Vs. State of U.P. And 3 Others 2019 Law Suit (All) 134. The Court finds that the applicant is not a necessary party to these proceedings nor is his presence required for an efective and complete adjudication of the issues that stand raised. The application would merit rejection for the following reasons:

(2.) It is firstly pertinent to note that the inquiry which is initiated against the Gram Pradhan is governed by statutory rules framed under the Act, namely, the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 ["the 1997 Rules"]. Although an inquiry thereunder can be initiated by the competent authority taking into consideration a complaint made by any villager or member of the Gram Sabha, significantly, those Rules do not grant that complainant any right of audience or indefeasible right of participation in the enquiry which is conducted. The complainant, as in the very nature of those procedings, is merely placed on the pedestal of an informant. It is the information or complaint that is made by him which is enquired into in order to test the veracity of the allegations levelled. The complainant in that sense is only espousing an issue of larger public interest and has no personal interest. He is thus not a necessary party to the lis that may ultimately travel to this Court on the culmination of the preliminary or final enquiry under the 1997 Rules. The observations as rendered by the learned Judge in Rajendra Singh also do not come to the aid of the applicant since as is evident from the observations appearing in paragraph 10, it has only been observed that while a complainant may not be a necessary party to proceedings, the Court may in its discretion allow and grant him a right of address if circumstances so warrant. In the facts of the present case, the Court has found no justification to hear or grant audience to the applicant inasmuch as the entire matter including the complaint against the petitioner as made by the applicant have been duly taken cognizance of by the District Magistrate. The judgment in Akhlao can have no application for that came to be rendered in respect of a challenge to an order made in favour of a fair price shop dealer. That decision was not rendered in the backdrop or context of the 1997 Rules.

(3.) It would be pertinent to bear in mind the distinction that must be recognised to exist between a prayer for impleadment and that of intervention. While impleadment is accorded to a necessary party in whose absence the lis cannot be decided, a prayer for intervention may be granted by the Court in respect of an applicant who may not be a necessary party. A prayer for intervention may be granted by the Court in favour of an applicant whose presence may be conducive and may facilitate the ultimate disposal of the petition. The right to intervene is subject to the discretion of the Court and dependent upon its opinion whether the presence of the applicant is warranted in furtherance of justice. In the facts of the present case, the Court has found it unnecessary to hear the applicant/complainant since ultimately it is the view taken by the respondents that merits evaluation.