The main legal point established in the judgment is that Union of India is a necessary party in writ petitions, and the writ is not maintainable against Government Officers or employees of the State, but only against the State itself.

( 1 ) THIS Special Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 5-3-2002, by which the writ petition of the respondent-petitioner has been allowed.

( 2 ) SHRI Shishir Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the writ petition was not maintainable as Union of India has not been impleaded as respondent. Submitting that even if respondent-petitioner wants to execute the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, as Union of India has not been the party, it can refuse to accept it.

( 3 ) THE respondent-petitioner in person submitted that the appellant respondents have not raised this issued before the learned Single judge, therefore, it can not be permitted to be raised. Non-joinder of a party is not fatal and union of India is not a necessary party, therefore, the objection raised on behalf of the appellants is not worth substance.

( 4 ) WE have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record only for the purposes of the preliminary issue.

( 5 ) UNDOUBTEDLY, it appears from the judgment and proceedings that no such objection could be raised before the learned Single Judge. However, being a pure question of law, such an objection can be entertained at this stage also.

( 6 ) IT is settled proposition that a pure question of law, which does not require any investigation of fact, can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. An issue which requires investigation of facts, cannot be allowed to be agitated. (Vide Ratan Lal Sharma v. Managing committee; St. Arunchallai Pillai v. Southern Roadways Ltd. ; A. M. Allison v. State of assam; Cantonment, Ambala v. Pyare Lal; state of U. P. v. Dr. Anupam Gupta; Bhanwar lal v. T. K. A. Abdul Karim; Rajeshwari Amma v. Joseph; Commissioner of Income Tax v. U. P. Forest Corporation; PR. Deshpande v. Maruti Balaram Haibatti; State of Punjab v. R. N. Bhatnagar; Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. M. C. Chelland Engineers S. A. ; rajas than Agriculture Uniuersity v. Ram krishna Vyas; Warner Hindustan Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise; Atlas Export industries v. Kotak and Co. ; and Ram Kumar agrawal v. Thaurar Das.

( 7 ) IN Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. Udham singh Kamal and Ors. , the Honble Supreme court has held that a plea, for which no foundation has been laid before the trial Court or Tribunal, cannot be entertained in writ jurisdiction.

( 8 ) SIMILAR view has been reiterated in gopichand Gupta v. Jain Plastic Industry, andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board and ors. v. J. Venkateswara Rao and Ors. , and sahadeuan @ Sagadeuan v. State.

( 9 ) THUS, in view of the above, the preliminary issue raised by the petitioner-respondent is worth examining and they are permitted to raise the issue being pure question of law.

( 10 ) NEARLY a Constitution Bench of the honble Supreme Court, in Udit Narain Singh malpaharia v. Member, Board of Revenue, bihar and Ors. , has dealt with the issue as who are the necessary parties, formal parties and proper parties and held as under:-"necessary party is one, without whom no order can be made effectively; a proper party is one, in whose absence an effective order cannot be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding. . . . . Any order that may be issued behind the back of such a party, can be ignored by the said party. Summons must be served on all persons directly affected. . . . . That a party against whom relief is sought, should be named in the petition. It is equally clear that all parties affected by that order should also be necessary parties to the petition. . . It would be against all principles of natural justice to make an order adverse to them behind their back; and any order so made could not be effective one. They were, therefore, necessary parties before the High Court. "

( 11 ) THE Apex Court further dealt with the issue as to whether such a necess