1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR JUDGMENT Shimnit Utsch India Vs.State of Rajasthan & Ors. Pvt.Ltd. D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.360/2009 under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance read with Rule 134 of Rajasthan High Court Rules against the order dated 30.3.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge. DATE OF JUDGMENT ::: JULY 31,2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. R.C.GANDHI,ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI Mr.S.M.Mehta Sr.Counsel with Ms.Naina Saraf for the appellant. Mr.G.S.Bapna Advocate General. Mr.Paras Kuhad with ) Mr.Pancham Surana ) Mr.Ajay Kumar Jain ) for the respondents. BY THE COURT: (Per Hon'ble K.S.Chaudhari,J) **** This appeal has been filed against the order dated 30th March, 2009 passed by learned Single Judge by which he dismissed application of intervener-Chandra Bihari to be impleaded as a party, but Chandra Bihari was allowed to intervene in the matter. Petitioner filed a writ petition bearing SB Civil Writ Petition No.2888/2009 challenging the order dated 6.3.2009 whereby 2 the Office of the Transport Commissioner suspended agreement to supply and provide services for affixing High Security Registration Plates on Motor Vehicles. Intervener-Chandra Bihari moved application to implead him as a party in the proceedings as on his criminal complaint the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases,Jaipur took cognizance and ordered Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Rajasthan to enquire the matter and submit report. He further alleged that role of applicant-Chandra Bihari has been mentioned in the writ petition at various places though coveted, so he may be impleaded as a party in the writ petition. Learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties rejected the application for impleadment of applicant-Chandra Bihari as party respondent, but allowed him to intervene in the matter. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that applicant has no fair semblance of title or interest in the matter and the learned Single Judge has committed error in allowing applicant-Chandra Bihari to intervene in the matter, hence the appeal may be accepted and order dated 30th March, 2009 may be set 3 aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that on his complaint, order dated 6.3.2009 has been passed and many allegations have been levelled against him in the writ petition and the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed him to intervene in the matter, hence, the appeal may be dismissed. Learned Single Judge has clearly held that intervener-Chandra Bihari cannot be impleaded as a party though he made serious allegations in criminal complaint pertaining to the same contract. While rejecting this application on the request of the learned counsel for the intervener, learned Single Judge allowed Chandra Bihari to intervene in the matter without assigning any reason. We do not find any allegations levelled directly against the intervener in the writ petition filed by the appellant. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the intervener is likely to be condemned in the writ petition without affording him an opportunity of hearing. On this count Mr.Chandra Bihari has no right to intervene in the matter. This is the matter between the State Government and the appellant pertaining to contractual obligations and for that purpose intervenor cannot be said to have any concern in the writ petition. 4 Learned counsel for the intervenor placed reliance on 1993 (1) RLW, 532 (Sidhraj Dhadd vs. State of Rajasthan), in which it was held that in public interest litigation any person may move the Court for judicial redress where a legal wrong or legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right. This citation does not help to the intervenor as the writ petition filed by the appellant before the Single Bench is not a public interest litigation, but it has been filed against the Government and Transport Department challenging specific order dated 6.3.2009 pertaining to contractual obligation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on AIR 2005 (SC) 2813 (Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal and ors.) in which it was held that in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale, stranger claiming independent title and possession over contracted property is neither necessary nor proper party and, therefore, not entitled to join as party defendant in suit. He also placed reliance on (1992) 2 Supreme Court Cases, 524 (Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & ors.) in which lessee of the premises seeking to be 5 impleaded as additional defendant on the ground of being necessary party having material to show that the structures were unauthorised was held to be not a necessary or proper party in a suit relating to property. Thus, it becomes clear that intervenor- respondent has no right to intervene in the matter as neither allegations have been levelled against him nor he has any fair semblance of title or interest in the writ petition. Hence, the appeal is accepted and order dated 30th March, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. (K.S.CHAUDHARI)J (R.C.GANDHI)ACTG.C.J. teekam