http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: V.P. DUGGAL & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT30/07/1976

BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH UNTWALIA, N.L.

CITATION:  1977 AIR  196            1977 SCR  (1)  96  1976 SCC  (3) 715

ACT:             Practice and procedure--Whether High Court can direct  a         Minister  to be impleaded as a party and file  his  personal         affidavit.

HEADNOTE:             The  respondent challenged the validity of a  Government         Notification,  and also the Minister’s order  upholding  the         same.   At  the hearing, the High Court  directed  that  the         concerned  Minister  be impleaded as a party, and  file  his         personal affidavit.  Challenging the directions, the  appel-         lant  contended  before  this Court,  that  the  allegations         against the Minister did not disclose any personal ammus  on         his part, and he was not liable to be added as a party or to         file his affidavit.         Partly allowing the appeal, the Court,             HELD:  The direction for the impleading of the  Minister         as  a party was given by the High Court with a view  to  ap-         praise the Minister of the allegations made in the  petition         and  thus  to  afford him an  opportunity  of  controverting         those .allegations, if .he so deemed proper.  We decline  to         interfere.It is   essentially for the Minister concerned  to         decide in the light of the allegations made in the  petition         as to whether he should or should not file an affidavit.         [97 E-F]

JUDGMENT:                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal  No.                  1207 of 1975.                      (Appeal by special leave from  the judgment and                  order  dated 5-8-1975 of the Punjab & Haryana  High                  Court in  Letters  Patent Appeal No. 459/75).                      J.S.  Wasu,  Adv.  General,  Punjab  and   O.P.                  Sharma,  for  the appellants.                  V.C. Mahajan and S.S. Khanduja, for respondent  No.                  1. P.K. Pillai, for respondent No. 1.                  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by             KHANNA,  J.--This is an appeal by special leave  by  the         State  of Punjab against the order of the Punjab  &  Haryana

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

       High  Court,  whereby at was directed that the  Minister  in         charge  of Irrigation Department be impleaded as a party  in         the  writ  petition filed by V.P.  Duggal  respondent.   The         Minister was also directed to file his affidavit.             In  the writ petition filed by him,   Duggal  respondent         challenged  notification dated January 29, 1974  fixing  the         seniority  of the engineers n the Irrigation  Department  of         the Punjab Government.  During the course of the heating  of         the  writ petition, an order was made by the High  Court  on         November  18, 1974 that the Minister concerned might give  a         personal  hearing  to the parties and  thereafter  pass  the         necessary  order  in the matter.   The  Minister   concerned         thereafter  heard  the parties and made a speaking order  on         February 18, 1975 affirming the earlier seniority list.  The         writ petition was thereafter amended, and         97         in  the amended petition, Duggal respondent also  challenged         the validity of .the later order of February 18, 1975.             At the resumed hearing of the writ petition, the learned         Judge  hearing the petition directed that the Minister  con-         cerned  be impleaded as a party in the petition, as  in  the         view of the learned Judge, allegation had been made  against         the Minister that he had deviated from the normal  procedure         while  passing the impugned order dated  February  18,  1975         inasmuch  as he had dealt with the matter directly  and  by-         passed  the Secretary of the Department. Direction was  also         issued that the Minister should file an affidavit in  regard         to the allegations made in the petition.         At  the hearing of the appeal before us, the  learned  Advo-         cate General for the State of Punjab has contended that  the         allegations made in the amended petition do not disclose any         personal  animus on  the part of the Minister concerned  and         as such the High Court was in error   in directing that  the         Minister  be  impleaded as a party.  The  learned  Advocate-         General has also assailed the direction of the High Court in         sofar  as  the  Minister has been called upon  to  file  his         personal affidavit.As against that, Mr. Mahajan on behalf of         Duggal   respondent has urged that looking to the  facts  of         the  case if the High Court came to the conclusion that  the         Minister was a necessary or proper party, this Court  should         not interfere in the matter.         We have given the matter our  consideration, and it seems to         us that the direction for the impleading of the Minister  as         a  party  was given by the High Court with a view to apprise         the  Minister  of the allegations made in the  petition  and         thus  to  afford him an opportunity of  controverting  those         allegations, if he so deemed proper. Taking the totality  of         the  facts and circumstances of the case,  we do   not  feel         persuaded  to  interfere with the order of  the  High  Court         adding   the Minister as a party to the writ  petition.  The         High Court was, however, in our opinion in error in  direct-         ing  that the Minister concerned should file his  affidavit.         It  is essentially for the Minister concerned to  decide  in         the  light  of the allegations  made in the petition  as  to         whether  he  should or should not file  an  affidavit.   We,         therefore,  decline to interfere with the order made by  the         High  Court insofar as it has directed that the Minister  be         impleaded  as a party.  The other part of the order  whereby         the  Minister  concerned was directed to file  his  personal         affidavit is set aside.  The appeal shall stand disposed  of         accordingly.  The  parties in the circumstances  shall  bear         their own costs.         M.R.                                         Appeal   partly         allowed.         98

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3