JUDGMENT :

Order on C. M. Application No.1 of 2022

1. Office has reported delay of 18 days in filing the Special Appeal.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Chief Standing Counsel representing the sole respondent and have also perused the averments made in the application supported by an affidavit.

3. We are satisfied that the delay has sufficiently been explained.

4. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay in preferring the Special Appeal is hereby condoned.

Order on C. M. Application No.3 of 2022

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Chief Standing Counsel and perused the averments made in the application with the prayer to grant leave of the Court to file Special Appeal which is supported by an affidavit.

2. Though, the appellant is not a party in the writ petition in which the order dated 02.03.2022 has been passed by the learned Single Judge which is under appeal herein, however, since the prayer in the Special Appeal is confined to set aside only that portion of the order where allegedly aspersions have been cast and adverse remarks has been made against the appellant, the application is allowed and the leave to appeal is granted.

Order on Special Appeal

1. This case presents somewhat unusual facts before us.

2. The instant intra-court appeal seeks to challenge the order dated 02.03.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ -C No.6208 of 2021 to the extent the order allegedly casts aspersions and makes adverse remarks against the appellant who is a practicing lawyer of this Court and at the relevant point of time was an Additional Advocate General for State for Uttar Pradesh and has been representing the State in the cases brought before this Court.

3. Learned Chief Standing Counsel has raised certain preliminary objections about the maintainability of the Special Appeal. It has been contended in this regard by the learned Chief Standing Counsel that in terms of the provision contained in Chapter IX Rule 7 of the Rules of the Court, all the parties who are arrayed as either parties in the writ petition wherein the order under appeal has been passed, ought to have been arrayed as respondents in this Appeal. It has also been submitted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel that the writ petition was filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh not through the Legal Remembrancer/Principal Secretary, Department of Law but by the Department of Forest through Divisional Forest Officer, Lucknow. Thus, submission is that in the instant Special Appeal, the State has been arrayed not through the Forest Department; rather through Legal Remembrancer/Principal Secretary, Department of Law and as such description of the respondent is defective.

4. On the aforesaid grounds, learned Chief Standing Counsel has contended that the Special Appeal suffers from the vice of non-joinder of necessary parties and description of State as respondent is also defective.

5. In reply to the said objections, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant has no personal concern with the adjudication of the dispute in the writ petition and that she has only been representing the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge and is aggrieved only by the adverse remarks made by the learned Single Judge, hence parties in the writ petition are not necessary parties. He further states that no relief is being claimed by the appellant against the parties in the writ petition, thus there is no defect in the array of parties in this Special Appeal.

6. Therefore, it has been submitted that the parties to the writ petition pending before the learned Single Judge are not necessary parties so far as the issue raised in this Special Appeal is concerned. It has also been argued that since it is believed by the appellant that on the basis of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has been discharged from the office of Additional Advocate General of State for Uttar Pradesh by the Law Depar