Dismissed

Ganesan v. the District Collector

Madras HC5 Mar 2020WA/179/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court humanitarian dismissed the writ appeals against a Single Judge's order that dismissed a writ petition for non-joinder of a necessary party. The Court granted liberty to the appellants to seek a review application to implead the necessary party in the Single Judge court.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to move review application to lower court for impleadment of necessary party.

Ganesan Vs the District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.03.2020

¶3

CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

Writ Appeal Nos.179 and 184 of 2020
Ganesan ...Appellant in W.A.No.179/2020
G.Karthikeyan ...Appellant in W.A.No.184/2020
-Vs-
1.The District Collector
Vellore District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Ranipet,
Vellore District.
3.The Tahsildar, Arcot Taluk
Arcot,
Vellore District. ...Respondents in both appeals
For Appellants : Mr.T.Karunakaran

¶5

Prayer : Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of this Court dated 01.10.2019 passed in W.P.No.23943 of 2010 and W.P.No.23945 of 2010. Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, for a writ of Certiorarified Madamus, calling for the entire records relating to Na.Ka.A3/551/2009 dated 19.08.2010 passed by the 3rd respondent and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner for the post of Village Assistant in Palli village, Marudham Village.

¶6

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶7

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

¶8

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J.)

¶9

The present appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 01.10.2019, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition for want of nonjoinder of necessary and proper party D.Vinayagam, who was appointed as Village Assistant by the order dated 19.08.2010, which was sought to be challenged by the present appellants / petitioners.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellants that, the said person had already been appointed and removed in the year 2008 and he was not actually working under the appointment order dated 19.08.2010 and therefore, the rejection of the writ petition on the ground of non-joinder of necessary and proper party is not sustainable and the impugned order of the learned Single Judge deserves to be interfered with.

¶11

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, we are satisfied that there is no error in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and in our opinion, the impleadment of D.Vinayagam, who was appointed by the order dated 19.08.2010 was necessary and the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted, in having rejected the writ petition for want of non-joinder of necessary and property party in the matter. A person whose rights are likely to be adversely affected by the present writ proceedings, is a necessary party to be heard.

¶12

At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that he may be permitted to move appropriate Review Application before the learned Single Judge seeking leave of the learned Single Judge to implead the said D.Vinayagam as party in the writ petition and maintain the writ petition.

¶13

We grant the said liberty to the appellants to move appropriate Review Application before the learned Single Judge for impleadment of the necessary party D.Vinayagam and leave it to the discretion of the learned Single Judge. With the aforesaid liberty, these Writ Appeals are disposed of. No costs.

¶14

//True Copy//

¶15

KST

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

¶18

1.The District Collector Vellore District.

¶19

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer Ranipet, Vellore District.

¶20

3.The Tahsildar, Arcot Taluk Arcot, Vellore District.

¶21

+2 cc to M/s.Karunakaran, Advocate, S.R.No.19606,19607

¶22

+1 cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.20209

¶23

W.A.Nos.179 & 184 / 2020
RSI(CO)
RN(20/05/2020)

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Ganesan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Vs M/S.Indian Cement Ltd.

Sultan Pillai & Sons Vs the Income Tax Settlement

P.Selva Mahaesh Raja Vs the Official Trustee of Tamilnadu

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Smt Padmavathy Bafna

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Dr.K.Kannagi

M/S.Pals Trading Co., Ltd., Vs Customs, Excise and Service