POONAM Vs. COLLECTOR, BHANDARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) During pendency of this petition, there came an order passed by the Hon'ble Minister. This order is now sought to be challenged by the petitioner on various grounds taken in the proposed amendment application. We find that the amendments are necessary for making an effective adjudication in the present case. However, we do not find that Hon'ble Minister is a necessary party, there been no malafide attributed to him. As such, we allow the amendment application partly, except for what the application proposes as regards the Hon'ble Minister - respondent No.5.

(3.) Accordingly, we direct the petitioner to carry out the amendment by deleting the name of respondent No.5 as the proposed additional party respondent and also substituting the words "respondent No.5" with the words "the Hon'ble Minister (State), Urban Development Department, Mumbai" wherever they appear in the proposed amendments. Such amendments be carried out on or before next date. Copy of the amended petition be furnished to other side with liberty to other side to file reply thereto.