HAZARI LAL SARPANCH Vs. MANIK SONWANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for amendment of the writ petition in which the petitioner challenged all the orders of suspension, charge-sheet and enquiry under Section 102(2) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 . The said orders were challenged on the ground of mala fides averred against an influential M.L.A. and the Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa. The writ petition was admitted for hearing and the operation of suspension order (annexure P-3) was stayed at the motion stage itself. In the meantime, fresh election has taken place and the petitioner has been re-elected. However, the proceedings initiated earlier which were under challenge in the writ petition continued resulting in an order dated 30.1.1988 by which the petitioner was found guilty of charges attributed to him and consequently, he has been removed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the subsequent order dated 30.1.1988 has come into existence during the pendency of this writ petition and the grounds of challenge are the as were canvassed earlier, he has to impugn the said order by amending the writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents seriously and vehemently opposed the proposed amendment and contended that the writ petition has become infructuous as the order underchallenge therein was only with respect to suspension and with the holdings of fresh election, the order of suspension came to an end. It is further contended that since the order of removal by of amended writ petition, the petition is not maintainable against the said order as an alternative remedy of appeal is available. It is also further stated that in a similar situation, about 40 writ petitions have been dismissed. The learned counsel cited one of them being C.W.P. No. 4918 of 1988 and produced a copy of order passed therein, which reads, "If the earlier order of suspension is sought to be renewed against the petitioner on a subsequent occasion, the petitioner will have all his remedies against the action taken under that order." Public and State interest lies regarding the litigation and not to increase it. Multiplicity of proceedings should be avoided. Substantial justice should be the object while considering the permission for amendment is granted. Provisions of order 6 rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure are procedural rules enabling the Court to facilitate the determination of real question in dispute. Normally, amendment should be allowed unless and until it is male fide or affects the rights of the party. So prejudicially that he cannot be compensated in any manner or the proposed amendment is barred by any Statute. The amendment is being opposed not on the ground of limitation.