AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The instant application has been filed by the petitioner seeking extension of time for filing the affidavit, stamp and court fee etc in support of the
petition.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The petitioner shall do the needful within a period of three days, when the normal
functioning of the Courts begins.
Application is, accordingly, disposed of.
Notice.
Mr. Himanshu Beotra, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 3, who is on caveat. Caveat shall stand discharged. There is no need to
serve other respondents.
With the consensus of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
The petitioner has impugned order dated 07.10.2020 passed by respondent No. 1 in a revision petition filed by respondent No. 3, whereby order dated
19.08.2020 by virtue of which officiating charge of Managing Director/CEO was granted in favour of the petitioner, was stayed by respondent No. 1.
During the pendency of the revision petition, the petitioner laid a motion for arraying him as party respondent but the same was dismissed by the
respondent No. 1 vide order dated 10.11.2020. The petitioner has also assailed the said order in the present petition Mr. Ajay Gandotra, learned
counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that as assigning the charge of Managing Director/CEO was granted to the petitioner by virtue of
order dated 19.08.2020 and the said order was challenged by respondent No. 3 in a revision, the petitioner was required to be arrayed as party
respondent. He has further argued that no reason has been assigned by respondent No. 1 while rejecting the application for arraying the petitioner as a
party respondent.
On being confronted with these facts, Mr. Himanshu Beotra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 very fairly conceded and agreed that the
petitioner is a necessary party for the purpose of adjudication of the revision petition and he has no objection, if the petitioner is arrayed as party
respondent in the revision petition pending before respondent No. 1.
I have also gone through the order dated 10.11.2020. No reason, whatsoever, has been assigned by respondent No. 1 while rejecting the application of
the petitioner for arraying him as a party.
Needless to say that the reasons are the soul of any judicial or quasi judicial order. Since no reasons has been assigned by the respondent No. 1 while
passing order impugned, the said order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pankaj Garg v Meena Garg and another, (2013) 3 SCC 246. Relevant para 4 reads:
“We have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis and also carefully perused the judgment and order passed by the High Court. To say the
least, the order passed by the High Court is a non-speaking order. It is a settled position of law that an order which does not contain any reason is no
order in the eye of law. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order requires to be set aside and the matter requires to be remanded to the High
Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.â€
The petitioner was a necessary party in a revision petition as his status was challenged by the respondent No. 3. So far as challenge to order dated
07.10.2020 is concerned, Mr. Ajay Gandotra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall raise all the available pleas before respondent No.
1 and both the counsels have agreed for the expeditious disposal of the revision petition within a stipulated period of time.
In view of what has been discussed above, this petition is partly allowed. The order 10.11.2020 is quashed. The petitioner is arrayed as respondent
No. 4 in the revision petition. The respondent No. 1 shall make all possible endeavours to dispose of the revision petition, preferably within the period
of three months from today. However, this order shall have no effect or bearing on the merits of the controversy between the contesting parties.
Disposed of.