Shopian Oil Agency vs State of J & K

Mohd Ramzan Wani has filed this application for being impleaded as a party to OWP No. 574/2005, which is directed against order

tTo.DCAPDK7K.oi 1/2005 dated 17.10.2005 of Director, Consumer Affairs & Public Distribution, Kashmir.

The applicant seeks his impleadment on the plea that dealership of Shopian Oil Agency was initially allotted to Lassi Wani, who entered into a

partnership with him for making the agency operational for the purposes of makiig supplies of kerosene oil to the inhabitants of Tehsil Shopian.

After the death of Lassi ""Wani, the partnership is stated to have been reconstituted by the legal heirs of Lassi Wani with some strangers to the

exclusion of the applicant.

The dispute between the legal heirs of Lassi Wani and applicant is stated to Ve pending before learned Sub Judge, Shopian, and learned District

Judge, Pu.wama. Applicant says had withdrawn the leasehold of the land, which he had offered for running Shopian Oil Agency. The dispute

pending before Civil Courts is with respect to the rendition of accounts and declaration to the effect that the applicant is also a partner of the

Shopian Oil Agency. Applicant is alleged to have complained to the Director, CA&PD, J&K Govt. Srinagar, about the illegal' actions of the writ

petitioner in running the affairs of Shopian Oil Agency, and on this complaint, the Director passed an order under his No. DCAPDK/K.oil/2005

dated 17.10.2005.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is a necessary party to the writ petition because the Director, CA&PD, had taken action on

the complaint of the applicant and he may be I permitted to contest the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the nonapplicant/writ petitioner, on die other hand, submits that the applicant was neither a 'necessary' nor 'proper' party to

the writ petition because whatever rights he had claimed in the Shopian Oil Agency were pending adjudication before the Civil Courts and that the

success or failure of the writ petition would not in any way affect the alleged rights of the applicant.

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

A person may be said to be a necessary party only if final judgment in a lis would not be possible in his absence, and a proper party would be a

person whose presence may be necessary to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in

the lis.

From what has been said by the applicant in his application, it is clear that his status was that of a complainant before the Director, CA&PD,

who had passed the order impugned in the writ petition. The impugned order has, thus, to be defended by the authority, which had passed it.

Complainant's presence may not be necessary to decide as to whether or not the order of the Director, CA&PD, was good, bad or indifferent.

His presence may not be required in writ proceedings, for a final judgment was possible in his absence because it is the Director, CA&PD, who

has to defend his action on the basis of material on his records. Complainant, in such a case, is neither a necessary nor proper party to the lis

where the action of the Director, CA&PD, was questioned. Civil rights claimed by the applicant, as admitted by him in the application, are pending

adjudication before the Civil Courts. Those rights cannot, thus, be adjudicated upon in this writ petition.

I, therefore, do not find any merit in the application of Mohd Ramzan Wani, applicant, which is, accordingly, dismissed.