The presence of a party is necessary only if it is essential for the adjudication of the questions involved in the case.

JUDGMENT :

1. The matter comes up on an application (1/2022) filed by the applicant-Shri Govind Pandit S/o Shri Shyam Lal Pandit claiming himself to be a Ward Member of the Nagar Parisad, Beawar seeking his impleadment as respondent.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on his complaint, the order impugned placing the petitioner under suspension has been passed and hence, he may be impleaded as respondent.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the writ petition involves a lis in between the petitioner and the official respondents, the applicant is neither necessary nor, proper party. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the application.

4. Heard. Considered.

5. Indisputably, the writ petition involves a lis in between the petitioner, an elected Member and Chairperson of Nagar Parisad, Beawar and the official respondents in as much as challenge is made to the legality and validity of the order dated 17.06.2022 placing him under suspension. Merely because the applicant is a Ward Member and has made complaint(s) against the petitioner, he can neither be reckoned as necessary nor, proper party.

6. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court has, in the case of Smt. Vimla Vyas vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: AIR 2009 Rajasthan 109, held as under:

"24. The charge of the office of the Chairperson of the said Municipal Board came in the hands of the applicant Smt. Shakuntala Singhvi for the fortuitous circumstances that the State Government chose to remove the petitioner from such office and then, chose to nominate the applicant as the person to hold such charge as per the requirements of Section 69-A of the Act of 1959. There was no legal right otherwise existing in the applicant to hold the charge of the office of the Chairperson of the said Municipal Board nor any additional right came vesting in her because of being nominated by the State Government to hold the charge. The said applicant, not having any direct right so as to litigate against the petitioner so far subject matter of this writ petition is concerned cannot be acceded a right to join this writ petition.

25. The prayer for quashing of the order dated 26.12.2007 (Annex.14), whereby the applicant was nominated to hold the charge, is only a consequential relief that seems to have been incorporated so as to complete the frame of the petition and else, this Court is clearly of opinion that even if the said order Annexure-14 is not challenged nor anything is pronounced thereupon, the petitioner is very much entitled yet to question the legality of the order Annexure-12 as passed against her.

26. The basic and the core questions in this writ petition are related to the validity and legality of the order of removal of the petitioner; and that is essentially a matter between the petitioner and the State Government. The presence of the applicant does not appear necessary for effectual and complete adjudication of the questions involved in this writ petition and she cannot be said to be a necessary party at all. As pointed out above, the applicant came to be handed over the charge only for the reason that the petitioner was ordered to be removed from the office and the applicant was nominated by the State Government to be the person to whom the charge was to be handed over. However, for these reasons and circumstances, the applicant does not become even a proper party in this writ petition because the matter directly and substantially in issue is to be determined only with reference to the submissions of the petitioner and the State Government.

29. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find a wee bit of justification that the applicant be allowed to join this writ petition or even to intervene in the matter. The application (IA No. 15552/2008) stands rejected."

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court of India has, in case of Mohd. Hussain Gulam Ali Shariffi v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors., 2016 SCC Online SC 188