/^r\ S;,sSeSfc 1 '^^S^^'f; ^ ^-.^^' / , ~<te!»y I'-^-Y^'V u".':'/ ^^ ll^l 'A. ej HON'BL! :UBt l f^ :s~sr^i fc.e^». •IADOO, J. 'iiisonsr D.P. Sar Khatan^dd-^araf, Qt. No. E-22 ^k, S.E.C.L. 2. 'r' n ^. i-1.; State of Chhattisgarh Through CoHector, Bii'aspur. Union of India (Bharat Sangh) through Chief Controller of Explosive, Block A, 5th Storey, C.G.O. Compiex, Seminri Hills, Nagpur (Maharashtra) WriLADDeAlyntler_S_ection2JJlofJ:heChhatti3garhHjahCoyrt {Appea! to Division Bench) Act, 2005 Present; Shri D.P. Saraf, apoeilant in person. Shri Yashv/ant Singh, learned DeputyAdvocate Genera! for the State / respondent No.1. Shri Manish Sharma, learned counsel for respondent (13ih February, 200S The foltowing judgment of ;the Court was passed by Heard learned counsel for the parties on admission. f2) Appellant - D.P. Sara.f, has filed this writ appeal agalnst the impugned order dated 21-01-2008 passed in VV.P.(C) No. 7301/2007. (3) The appeltant filed the writ petltion for the foitowing rel (i) that the respondents should comply with the judgrrsent and decree dated 25* August, 2007 delivered by the learned Additionai District Judge, iiiaspur in Civjl Appeal No. 11-A/05 and act in iccorciance vi/ith law. (ii) that the respondent No.2 should not issue licence to the o'wner oT the petrol pump being operated over the land of the petitioner for arty transrerred place. (iii) that contempt of Court proceedings be initiated against the respondents, penalty be imposed on the respondents and the same be awarded to the petitioner. (4) Learned Single Judge finding that the person/persons likely to be affected by the grant of the reliefs sought in the writ petition were not impleaded as respondents in the writ petition, dismissed the writ petition with the foliowing observations in para 1 1 of the impugned order, which reads as under: "In the Instant case, as already observed in the foregoing paragraphs, the petitioner has not arrayed the licensee, owner of the petrol pump as respondent. From perusal of the decree as also the applications submitted by the petitioner before the respondents No. 1 & 2, it is ciear that the iicensee/dealer of the petrol pump was not made a party and without arraying the licence as party, an attempt has been made by the petitioner to get his licence cancelled whereas proviso to sub-rule 1 of Rule 153 ot' Petroleum Rules, 1976 clearly stipulates that before suspending or canceling yy^ v%. s^ .^ . '%S,ffSy^ :•!-'•• ^•?} the licence under shal) be given an opportunity of being heard. Thus, the petitioner by cieverty drafting this petition has tried to seek a relief against the owner of the petroi pump behind his back wsthout arraying him as a party." Appeilant - D.P. Saraf, during ~the course of reiterated the same grounds which were advanced before the writ Court and took the stand that the parties who were found necessary to be impleaded by the writ Court were not necessary parties in the writ petition. (6) !n our opinion, the grant of reiief No.2 of the above quoted refefe souglit in the writ petition is bound to affect the interest of the owner of the petroi pump adversely and as such owner of the petrol pump was a necessary party in the writ petition. (7) - In this view of the matter, we do not find any scope for interference in the writ appeal. (8) The writ appeal, therefore, is liabie to be dismissed and is hereby djsmissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo Judge •ubbu •fS?SWi.