ORDER

Date : 19-03-2021 Heard Mr. S. Borgohain, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Nagaland appearing for the State respondents as well as Mr. R. Iralu, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 in W.P. (C) 52/2020, Mr. Z.N. Ngullie, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 and Mr. Sentiyanger, learned counsel appearing for the proforma respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 in the present I.A.

This is an I.A. application filed under Order-1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking impleadment of (1) Sri. Y. Akato Zhimomi, Proprietor of M/S Vertex Construction (2) Sri. Howoto Jakhalu, Proprietor of M/S Multi Builders and (3) Joint Venture Construction of Vertex Multibuilders Hi-Tech.

This I.A. application has been filed in pursuance to the order dated 04-03-2020 passed by the Division Bench of this Court wherein, it was observed that it is not in dispute that although a joint venture of three persons had competed for bidding in the project and the same was subject to litigation, only one of them has filed the writ petition. Maintainability of the writ petition itself is a question to be determined. Thereafter, the Division Bench directed that the issue of curing the defect maybe addressed by filing application by the applicant/writ petitioners and the laws governing the issue with regard to which the writ court would adjudicate and decide. It is not for this Court to comment on this issue. Thereafter, the present application has been filed to cure the defect in the main writ petition which is numbered as W.P. (C) 249/2020. The intend of the I.A. is to implead the three mentioned proprietors who are sought to be brought as proforma respondents in the writ petition.

Objecting to the I.A. application, Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned Senior Additional Advocate General submits that the applicants has no locus standi as in the earlier petition they had participated in the bid as joint venture and not individually. Today the petitioner is before this Court in an individual capacity. The law recognizes a joint venture as a legal entity and the petitioner participating in the writ petition is not permissible under law. Simple reasons being that the petitioner lacks locus standi. Learned Senior Additional Advocate General has also pointed out several defects in the I.A. application which are; the petitioners have sought to produce power of attorney which has been executed by the parties on 25-09-2019 to authorize the petitioner to act on behalf of the joint venture. He submits that the power of attorney was executed prior to the formation of the joint venture which is 01-10-2019. Therefore, the power of attorney could not precede the formation of the said joint venture. Secondly, the power of attorney executed by the parties and naming themselves as power of attorney holder is not permissible in the eye of the law. The power of attorney is executed to authorize a 3rd person other than the executants to exercise such function through the power of attorney, hence the concept of power of attorney presented is misconceived. Further, the issue of locus which has been the principal objection raised by the respondents in the I.A. petition is that by filing I.A. petition to bring the joint venture partners as proforma respondents does not cure the defects of locus, meaning thereby, the other partners of the joint venture has to be a party in the writ petition and not the present partner alone. Therefore, the defects in the writ petition will not be cured by way of incorporating the three components of the joint venture as proforma respondents.

The learned Senior Additional Advocate General submits that the conduct of the applicants not mentioning the executation of power of attorney in the whole proceeding amounts to suppression of facts which is a conduct not acceptable in a writ petition. The petitioners are expected to come with clean hands. Therefore,