ORDER

1. Heard on IA No.10654/2022, application under Order 1 Rule X of the CPC read with section 151 of the CPC filed on behalf of proposed respondent.

2. Learned counsel for the proposed respondent submitted that the order impugned in this case has been passed by the respondents/authorities based upon the complaint filed by the proposed respondent/applicant, therefore, the applicant is a necessary party and is required to be erred as respondent in the cause title.

3. Learned counsel for the proposed respondent placed reliance on the judgment passed in the case of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd., Chennai v. Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of Agriculture, Gauhati and others reported in AIR 2004 Gauhati 73 to contend that it would be against the principles of natural justice to make an adverse remark behind the back of the persons, who are to be directly affected by the decision, sought for, in the writ petition. The reputation of the applicant is at stake while considering the question of necessary party, this Court has to bear in mind the principles of natural justice and should be conscious of the fact that no decision be reached behind the back of the party, whose interest will be vitally affected by the decision that may be pronounced in the writ petition, though in the writ petition, no relief has been sought for against such persons and though they may not be necessary for deciding the question of relief. In short, in view of the fact that such persons are likely to be affected by the decision that may be taken, principles of natural justice demand that they be heard before the decision is taken and in such a context, the applicant may be regarded as a necessary party.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner by filing the reply to the aforesaid application vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the proposed respondent is a "BUSYBODY" and is in habit of filing frivolous petitions before the Hon'ble High Court. In fact, he has formed a cartel including some of his relatives who are filing complaints against the authorities and then petitions in the High Court. The applicant is an Advocate by profession after retiring from the service. Earlier, the applicant was the Additional Collector and after retirement, he is practicing Advocate. He is in the habit of alleging false cases against the various persons in the DistrictChhatarpur, misuses the authorities, files frivolous criminal cases and also tries to blackmail the parties. It is not in dispute that the applicant is the complainant. The authorities acting upon the complaint of the applicant, had taken cognizance and passed the impugned order. The authorities concerned while passing the order also did not consider the fact that the order was passed against a dead person. The father of the petitioner was the party but he died during the proceedings below. As soon as the cognizance is taken, the matter exists between the State Government and the petitioner and the applicant has no role to play. Admittedly, the land in question does not belong to the applicant. He has no locus standi to challenge the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner had pointed out several instances where he has misused the authorities and has also created forged documents, therefore, he is not a necessary party and the case cited by counsel for the proposed respondent/applicant in the case of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd., Chennai (supra), is distinguishable and the facts and circumstances of the case are not similar.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. It is not in dispute that the applicant has no locus to become the respondent in the present case inasmuch as, there is no individual grievance of the applicant. On the basis of the complaint, the competent authority has already taken action against the petitioner. In such a situation, he is not a necessary party.

Accordingly, IA No.10654/2022 stands rejected.