Pachai Perumal vs The District Collector and Others

P. Jyothimani, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents

1 to 4 and the fifth Respondent, Dr. K. Krishnasamy, who has appeared party-in-person.

This Writ Appeal has been directed against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in M.P. No. 3 of 2011, impleading the fifth

Respondent as a party in the writ petition. It is seen that as against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District,

preventing the Appellant/writ Petitioner from drawing water from his well by exercising the power u/s 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the

Appellant has filed the writ petition. Pending writ petition, he has obtained an order of stay. The fifth Respondent has filed applications to implead

himself as a Respondent to the writ petition and also to vacate the order of interim stay, contending that he being the elected representative of the

people from the local Constituency, he is concerned about the public interest and according to him, by drawing water, the need of the people in

that area is being obstructed and therefore he has filed the interlocutory applications to implead himself as a party to the said writ petition and also

to vacate the interim stay. The learned Single Judge allowed the interlocutory application for impleadment taking note of the fact that the fifth

Respondent, being an elected representative, is a proper party for the purpose of deciding the issue.

Mr. S. Muthalraj, learned Counsel for the Appellant, vehemently contended that even though the fifth Respondent''s presence in the writ petition

is not detrimental to his interest, his main contention is that the fifth Respondent being not a party to the proceedings before the Revenue Divisional

Officer u/s 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he cannot be said to be either a proper or necessary party. We do not agree with the said

contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant for the simple reason as found by the learned Single Judge that the fifth Respondent is an

elected representative of the local Constituency and the issue also involves public interest. Therefore, we are of the firm view that the presence of

the fifth Respondent will enable this Court to come to the proper conclusion taking note of his submissions also.

The next point raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that by virtue of impleading the fifth Respondent on the public ground, the

learned Single Judge has usurped the power of the Division Bench in entertaining a Public Interest Litigation. We are unable to accept the said

contention for the reason that it is not as if the learned Single Judge has entertained the writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation. The learned

Single Judge has given reasons for impleading the fifth Respondent, who is an elected representative of the local Constituency, does not mean that

the writ petition is a Public Interest Litigation. We are also informed that the petition filed by the fifth Respondent for the purpose of vacating the

stay is posted today before another learned Judge of this Court.

In view of the above said reasons, We are unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant. We have no reason to

interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.