Allowed

Mahendra Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC22 Oct 2018WRIA/29461/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the appellate authority violated principles of natural justice by failing to implead the petitioner, a necessary party, in proceedings resulting in penal consequences. The impugned order was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh hearing after proper impleadment and opportunity of hearing was given.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 02.03.2017 quashed; matter remanded for impleadment of petitioner and fresh hearing.

Mahendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 29461 of 2017

¶3

Petitioner :- Mahendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Durga Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Krishna

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

The petitioner was functioning as an accountant in the Kshetriya Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Rijor, District Etah. The services of the petitioner were recommended to be terminated by the resolution passed by the Committee of Management on 15.10.2011. The aforesaid resolution was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Registrar, Cooperative, Aligarh Division, Aligarh. The aforesaid resolution was set aside by order dated 29.9.2016 passed by the respondent no.4, Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Registrar, Cooperative, Aligarh Division, Aligarh. The order dated 29.9.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Registrar, Cooperative, Aligarh Division, Aligarh was taken in appeal by the Kshetriya Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Rijor, Vikas Khand Sakeet, District Etah, through its Secretary Neme Singh before the appellate authority. The appellate authority has quashed the order dated 29.9.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Registrar, Cooperative, Aligarh Division, Aligarh.

¶6

The submission of Sri Durga Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not impleaded as a party in the appeal before the appellate authority under the Cooperative Societies Act. The petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing. The order passed by the

¶7

appellate authority dated 29.9.2016 has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and is ex-parte to the petitioner.

¶8

The aforesaid arguments regarding violation of principles of natural justice and non impleadment of necessary parties has also been categorically asserted in the writ petition. The said pleadings in the writ petition have not been refuted in the counter affidavit.

¶9

Nothing could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents to demonstrate that the petitioner was impleaded as a party in the appeal proceedings. The learned counsel for the respondents fairly admits that from the records of the case it cannot be asserted that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing.

¶10

The petitioner was a necessary party to the appeal since he would be directly affected by the outcome of the appeal. The order of the appellate authority visits the petitioner with penal consequences. Hence the petitioner was also entitled to be heard.

¶11

In view of the narrative in the preceding paragraphs the order dated 02.03.2017 passed by the appellate authority and assailed in the instant writ petition has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The proceedings before the appellate authority was bad in law for non joinder of a necessary party. The order passed by the appellate authority dated 2.3.2017 is arbitrary, illegal and cannot stand.

¶12

The order 2.3.2017 is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the appellate authority for fresh consideration. It is

¶13

open to the respondent no.3 to implead the petitioner in the appeal proceedings. In case the respondent no.3 impleads the petitioner in the appeal the appellate authority shall issue notices to the petitioner and proceed to hear the appeal on merits after giving full opportunity to the petitioner to tender his defence and also give him an opportunity of hearing and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

¶14

In case the impleadment application is filed by the respondent no.3 within a period of two months the same shall be entertained and the respondent no.3 shall be permitted to implead the petitioner.

¶15

The writ petition is allowed.

¶16

Order Date :- 22.10.2018 Pramod

Mahendra Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vipin Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rakesh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajendra Ram Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ravindra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Nagar Palika Parishad, Jhansi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Anil Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another