AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.P. Lavande, J.—Heard Mr. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants, Mr. Salkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Rodrigues, learned Counsel for respondent no. 3. By this application, the applicants/ petitioners seek to delete respondent no. 3 from the array of the parties in Writ Petition No.169/2011 filed by the applicants/ petitioners.
The applicants have filed the above Writ Petition challenging the order dated 4th March, 2011 passed by respondent no. 2 directing the applicants to demolish the alleged illegal constructions carried out by the applicants in violation of CRZ Regulation. It appears that upon a complaint made by respondent no. 3 about the alleged illegal constructions to respondent no. 2, respondent no. 2 took cognizance of the same and thereafter, passed the impugned order dated 4th March, 2011. In the petition filed by the applicants, respondent no. 3, who filed the complaint, has been joined as a party respondent.
Mr. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that respondent no. 3 is neither necessary nor proper party in Writ Petition filed by the applicants challenging the order passed by respondent no. 2 directing the applicants to demolish the alleged illegal constructions. According to Mr. Nadkarni, respondent no. 3 has no direct or legal interest in the subject matter and as such, the applicants cannot be compelled to join him as a party respondent in the petition. According to Mr. Nadkarni, respondent no. 3 has no direct or legal interest in the subject matter of the petition and merely because respondent no. 2 has passed the impugned order upon a complaint being lodged by respondent no. 3, does not entitle respondent no. 3 to be made party in the present Writ Petition. According to Mr. Nadkarni, the legal rights of respondent no. 3 are not affected by the impugned order or by the order that may be passed in the present petition filed by the applicants. Learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that the application deserves to be allowed. In support of his submissions, Mr. Nadkarni relied upon the following judgments :
(i) Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Others, .
(ii) Mr. Alwyn D''Cunha Vs. Village Panchayat of St. Lawrence and another; 2006 (2) G LT 368,
(iii) Unreported order dated 8th January, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in M.C.A. No.358/2009 in Writ Petition No.224/2005.(Shliston Furtado Vs. The Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority).
(iv) Shyam Fatechand Shende and another Vs. Alka Ganvir and another, .
(v) Samira R. Gauns Vs. Chandrakant S. Paryekar; 2009 (2) GlR 494.
Per contra, Mr. Rodrigues, learned Counsel for respondent no. 3 submitted that respondent no. 3 is a necessary party to the petition in as much as it was upon the complaint of respondent no. 3 that respondent no. 2 took action in the matter and passed the impugned order. Mr. Rodrigues further submitted that the applicants having joined respondent no. 3 in the petition is not now entitled to delete him from the cause title of the petition. Mr. Rodrigues further submitted that respondent no. 3 has direct interest in the outcome of the present petition and, therefore, the application filed by the applicants deserves to be dismissed. In support of his submissions, Mr. Rodrigues, relied upon the following judgments :
(i) M/s. Aliji Monoji and Co. Vs. Lalji Mavji and others, .
(ii) Adam A. Sorathia and another Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and another; 2002 (4) BCR 419.
(iii) Gulab Babusaheb Bargiri Vs. Executive Maharashtra State Electricity Board and others; 2001(1) BCR 39.
(iv) Milind Dattatreya Sugaukar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and another; 2006 (2) BCR 617.
I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record and the judgments relied upon.
As stated above, the applicants have filed the above petition challenging the order dated 4th March, 2011 passed by respondent no. 2 directing the demolition of the alleged illegal constructions carried out by the applicants in violation of CRZ Regulation. Therefore, the short question which arises for consideration is whether respondent no. 3 is a necessary or proper party in the petition filed by the applicants.
I do not deem it necessary to refer in detail to all the authorities cited by the rival parties. What emerges from the judgments cited by both sides is that in order to join as a party to the petition, a party must have direct and legal interest in the subject matter.
In Ramesh Kundalmal''s case (Supra), the Apex Court has held that in order to join as a party in the suit, the person must be directly or legally interested in the action in the answer i.e. he can say that the litigation may lead to result which may affect him legally that is by curtailing his legal rights. The Apex Court further held that the line has to be drawn between the direct interest or the legal interest and commercial interest. Although the said judgment was delivered by the Apex Court in the suit, the same principle would apply to Writ Petition filed by a party. The identical issue has been dealt with by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Shliston Furtado''s case (Supra) in which the application filed by the applicant for being made a party on the ground that it was at his instance that the action was taken by the Coastal Zone Management Authority, has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge, after considering several judgments including the judgment in the case of Ramesh Kundanmal (Supra).
In my opinion, the ratio laid down in the judgment in the case of Ramesh Kundanmal (Supra) is squarely applicable in the present case. It cannot be said that respondent no. 3 has legal or direct interest in the subject matter of the petition. Merely because the action was taken pursuant to the complaint made by respondent no. 3, the same would not make him either necessary or proper party in the petition. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the application filed by the applicants, deserves to be allowed.
In the present case, the applicants initially chose to join respondent no. 3 as a party respondent and thereafter, has filed the present application for deletion. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the respondent no. 3 is entitled to costs.
In view of the above discussion, the application is allowed. Respondent no. 3 be deleted from the cause title of the petition. Amendment to the cause title to be carried out within one week from today. The applicants shall pay costs of Rs. 1,500/- to respondent no. 3 within a period of one week.
Although respondent no. 3 is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the petition, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to permit respondent no. 3 to intervene in the petition. Consequential amendment to the petition to be carried out by the applicants, within a period of one week. The application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.