BERI, C.J.—These are two appeals under sec. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance directed against the judgments, of different dates of a learned single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ No. 513 of 1969 and S.B. Civil Writ No. 1284 of 1969. The learned Judge had dismissed the petitions because the Union of India was not made a party. As a common question arises in both the appeals, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

Petition No. 513/69— Petitioner Ranjeet Mal was an employee of the Northern Railway and was removed from service with effect from January 2, 1969, by an order Ex. 5 of that date. The General Manager, Northern Railway, rejected his appeal on March 25/26, 1969. On May 23, 1969 he preferred a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution impleading General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi and the Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, Northern Railway, New Delhi, as respondents. A preliminary objection was raised on October 29, 1971 that the writ petition was not maintainable because the Union of India was not joined as a party and it should, therefore, be dismissed. A copy of this objection was given to the counsel for the petitioner on October 29, 1971. On October 27, 1972 an application was made for leave to amend the writ petition and when it came to be considered on November 16, 1972, the petitioners counsel suggested that it may be heard along with the writ petition and he also made an application under sec. 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay. In the application under sec. 5 of the Limitation Act it was asserted that the petitioner prepared an application on October 30, 1971 for adding the Union of India as a respondent but it was discovered in the month of October 1972 that the application dated October 30, 1971 was lying in the pad of the papers in the office of the learned counsel for the petitioner and it was on account of the in-advertance of the learned counsel that the application came to be presented on October 27, 1972. The learned Judge held that it could not be characterised as bona fide mistake as no sufficient cause was shown within the meaning of sec. 5 of the Limitation Act for there was lack of due care and attention The application for amendment was dismissed. As the petitioner failed to implead the Union of India, the petition was dismissed.

Petition No. 1284/69—Uma Datt Kaushik, the petitioner, was working as an Assistant Booking Clerk at Phulera when a departmental inquiry was held against him and he was eventually removed from service. He filed a revision before the General Manager, which was dismissed on November 18,1969 The petitioner moved a petition on September 8, 1969 under Art.226 of the Constitution of India challenging his removal. The General Manager, Western Railway, Churchgate Bombay, the Divisional Superintendent, Jaipur Division, Western Railway, Jaipur and the Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Western Railway, Jaipur Division, Jaipur, were impleaded as respondents. These respondents filed a reply on February 14, 1972 that the petition was not maintainable as the Union of India, a necessary party had not been impleaded The petitioner filed a rejoinder on April 10, 1972 but he did not care to deal with the objection regarding the non-joinder of the Union of India. When the case came to be heard on September 24, 1973 an application was moved to make the Union of India as a respondent. The learned counsel offered no explanation for the inordinate delay and the learned single Judge held that the application for amendment was belated and was therefore dismissed. As the Union of India was a necessary party and it was not before the Court the writ petition was dismissed.

2. We had issued a notice to the respondents to show cause why the appeals be not admitted and Mr. Bhansali appeared in answer to the notice on behalf of the respondents in both the appeals.

3. The principles in regard to the necessary and proper parties in petitions for a w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document