Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.SAMBASIVA RAO, PUNNAIAH
S.Subbarayudu - Appellant
Versus
District Collector, Nellore - Respondent
Decided On : 09-23-76
WRIT PETITION - ADDITION OF PARTY - PROPER PARTY - ANDHRA PRADESH PANCHAYAT SAMITHI AND ZILLA PARISHADS ACT - LOCATING MATERNITY SUB-CENTRE - JURISDICTION OF PANCHAYAT SAMITHI - COURT'S DISCRETION TO ADD PROPER PARTIES - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, ORDER 1, RULE 10(2) - RULES UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION, RULE 12 - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
A writ petition was filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to construct a maternity sub-centre of the Primary Health Centre in any place other than Survey No. 194/1 of Ramapuram Revenue Village. The 6th respondent, the President of Ramapuram Ryot Sangham, filed an application to be added as a party to the writ petition, claiming that the sub-centre should be constructed in the main village of Ramapuram rather than in the hamlet of Kakolluvaripalli.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the 6th respondent was a proper party to the writ petition, as his presence was necessary to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the petition. The court found that the 6th respondent had a direct interest in the location of the sub-centre, as he was a rate-payer in Ramapuram village and would be affected by the decision of where to locate the sub-centre.
Issues: 1. Whether the 6th respondent was a necessary or proper party to the writ petition. 2. Whether the court had jurisdiction to add the 6th respondent as a party to the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the 6th respondent was not a necessary party to the writ petition, as his presence was not essential for the court to make an effective order. However, the court found that the 6th respondent was a proper party, as his presence would facilitate the settling of all the questions that may be involved in the controversy. 2. The court held that it had jurisdiction to add the 6th respondent as a party to the writ petition under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code and Rule 12 of the Rules under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court found that the 6th respondent's presence would be helpful to effectually adjudicate upon all points in dispute and that adding him as a party would avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ appeal, holding that the addition of the 6th respondent as a party to the writ petition was a proper exercise of the court's jurisdiction.
( 2 ) IN order to give an effective disposal to this appeal, it is necessary to notice briefly how and why the writ petition has been filed and the 6th respondent in the writ petition has applied to be added as a party to it. We will refer to the parties in this judgment of ours according to their array in the writ petition was, for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to construct the maternity sub centre of the Primary Health Centre of Narrawada, Udayagiri Taluk Nellore District in any place other than Survey No. 194/1 of Ramapuram Revenue Village. Originally there were five respondents viz. the District Collector, Nellore; The District Medical and Health Officer; The State of Andhra Pradesh; Shri G. Kondapa Naidu, M. L. A. and the Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings, Nellore. It is also averred in the writ petition and Vinjamur Panchayat Samithi decided to locate the Maternity sub-centre in Survey No. 194/1 of Ramapuram village in Udayagiri taluk of Nellore District from the year 1968 onwards. This is a sub-centre with a primary health centre at Narrawada and is being maintained from out of the funds of Vinjamuru Panchayat Samithi. The Government of Andhra Pradesh sanctioned the construction of a building for the sub-centre. A request was made by the District Medical and Health Officer for assignment of 3,500 sq. ft. of Government land in Survey No. 194/1 of Ramapuram village for this purpose. The District Collector addressed a communication to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali to send transfer proposals for this required area. When these proceedings are taking place, the 4th respondent, who was the sitting member of the State Legislature and who was the Ex-president of Vinjamuru Panchayat actuated by extraneous circumstances, made a representation to the District Collector and to the District Medical and Health Officer, that the maternity sub-centre be shifted out of Survey No. 194/1. After inspecting the site a report was made by the Additional District Medical and Health Officer recommending that the whole extent of Survey No. 194/1 may be assigned for the purpose. However the District Collector later directed construction of the sub-centre on a private site. The said survey No. 194/1 is situated in Kokolluvaripalli hamlet, whereas the new site is located in Ramapuram the main village. The District Collector directed construction of the maternity sub-centre in this new place in the main village of Ramapuram. He gave a contract to one G. Lakshmaiah on 28-4-1976 but later cancelled it and entrusted the word to one Chennakesavulu. The construction of the Maternity sub-centre in any place other than in Survey No. 194/1 is not only illegal and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Samithi and Zilla Parishads Act, but it is also against the Government directions and earlier reports and is direct result of the interference of the member of the legislature. The question of locating the maternity sub-centre at a particular place is within the exclusive power of the Panchayat Samithi and the Collector has no concern. Further when once it has been decided to locate the sub-centre at Survey No. 194/1 there is no reason, excepting the ground of mala fides, to shift it from that survey number. It is on the basis of those averments a writ of mandamus as stated at the threshold of this judgment, is sought for. This wit petition has been admitted and is pending disposal.
( 3 ) IN July, 1976 the 6th respondent filed W. P. M. P. No. 3798 of 1976 for adding him as a party. Incidentally he has also sought for vacating the stay granted earlier at the instance of the Writ Petitioner. In the affid
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
