The main legal point established in the judgment is that even though a party may not be a necessary party, they can be considered a proper party whose presence is required for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding.

ORDER :

1. These civil applications in these writ petitions are filed by applicants named therein seeking direction to be given to petitioners to add them as party respondents.

2. These applications are being disposed of by this common order since they were heard simultaneously.

3. The applicant in Civil Application No. 113/2021 is a citizen of Katol city. Whereas, applicants in other applications are elected municipal councillors of Katol Municipal Council.

4. Very lengthy arguments were advanced before this Court from both sides, namely on the side of applicants and on the side of petitioners regarding fate of these applications.

5. Learned senior counsel Shri S.V. Manohar, is representing all applicants who are seeking direction to get themselves added as party respondents in these writ petitions. Learned senior counsel Shri M.G. Bhangde, is appearing on behalf of petitioners in all these petitions and he is opposing these applications.

6. Cursory look to the petitions will have to be there in this order for deciding these applications.

7. These writ petitions are filed challenging order dated 4-12-2020 by respondent No. 2 i.e. Honourable State Minister, Urban Development Department, Mumbai. By the said order dated 4-12-2020, respondent No. 2 exercised powers under sections 42 and 55-A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short “the said Act”) and disqualified petitioners to hold office as President, Vice President and councillors of Municipal Council, Katol.

8. The petitioners in these writ petitions approached to this Court by filing these four different writ petitions challenging order dated 4-12-2020. This Court (Coram: Manish Pitale, J.) after hearing learned counsel for petitioners, issued notices and granted interim order in terms of prayer clause (b) of these writ petitions till disposal of writ petitions. Stay was granted to effect, operation, implementation, and execution of order dated 4-12-2020 passed by respondent No. 2.

9. After the order was passed by this Court, applicants approached by filing these civil applications and they are praying that they be joined as party respondents.

10. Learned senior counsel Shri Manohar, placed reliance on order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Application Nos. 768 and 1326/2020 in Writ Petition No. 859/2020 to buttress his point that applicants be joined as party respondents in these writ petitions. On the other hand, learned senior counsel Shri Bhangde for the petitioners submitted that the reliance on the order of the Division Bench is misplaced, inasmuch as Writ Petition No. 859/2020 was pertaining to removal of the President under section 55-1 of the said Act and, therefore, the said order is of no use inasmuch as statutory right is given to elected councillors to invoke powers under section 55-1 of the said Act. He submitted that such is not the case herein. He submitted that petitioners are removed by respondent No. 2 by exercising powers under section 55-A and section 42 of the said Act. Learned senior counsel Shri Bhangde relied upon an authoritative pronouncement of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs. District Collector, Raigad and Others, (2012) 4 SCC 407 to point out that complainant can be a witness but he cannot be the necessary party. He read out paragraph Nos. 58 to 60 and also opening line of paragraph No. 69 of the case cited supra. He, therefore, submitted that applicant are not having any legal right inasmuch as there is no legal injury to them. Therefore, they cannot be permitted to join as party respondents.

11. It is not disputed before this Court from the side of petitioners that starting point of order dated 4-12-2020 rests in complaints filed by these four applicants. Their complaints are different and those were filed before respondent No. 2 on different dates. In those complaints, these applicants submitted before respondent No. 2 that respondent No. 2 s