IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 6211 of 2009(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 3123/2005 IN OS.232/2004 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- T.K.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, THOTTAPPALLIYIL HOUSE, KUNNUBHAGOM KARA, VELLAVOOR VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK. BY ADV.MR.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. P.V.NAVARAJAN, THOPPIL HOUSE, PERUNNA P.O., CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM (PLAINTIFF) 2. VELLAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM (DEFENDANT) R2 BY ADV. MR.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.6211/2009 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.232/04 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY 2ND RESPONDENT IN O.S. BEFORE THE SUB COURT II, KOTTAYAM. P3: COPY OF THE STOCK REGISTER SHOWING THE ISSUANCE OF PASS TO PETITIONER DURING THE PERIOD AUGUST 2001 ONWARDS. P4: COPY OF INTIMATION DTD. 30/11/00 ISSUED TO PETITIONER FROM PANCHAYAT. P5: COPY OF THE INTIMATION DTD. 8/01/02 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P6: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 30/10/2000 OF VIGILANCE COMMITTEE UNDER THE PRESIDENTSHIP OF R.D.O.,KOTTAYAM. P7: COPY OF THE IMPLEADING PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S.232/04. P8: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO P7 PETITION FOR IMPLEADING. P9: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 28/01/2009 IN I.A.3123/05 IN O.S.232/04 BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.6211 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 24th June, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: 1. To issue a direction to call for the records leading to the passing of Ext.P9 order and to quash the same. 2. To issue a direction directing the Additional Sub Court, Kottayam to allow I.A.No.3123/05 in O.S.No.232/04 before the Additional Sub Court, Kottayam. 3. Grant such other reliefs which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 2. Petitioner wanted to get himself impleaded as a co-defendant in a suit filed by the first respondent which is now pending before the Additional Sub Court, Kottayam. The first respondent, a licensee, who got permission from the second respondent, a local authority to collect sand from a river situated within the jurisdiction of the second respondent laid the suit for refund of the money obtained for collecting sand from the river setting forth a case that he was not permitted to collect sand despite the issue of licence. It is the case of the petitioner that in some proceedings before this court and other forums, the Panchayat had represented that the first respondent had W.P.C.No.6211/09 - 2 - not been permitted to collect sand and stop memos had been issued prohibiting him from collecting sand and as such that respondent cannot resist the suit claim. The petitioner has got a further case that despite the stop memos issued and the representations as indicated above made by the local authority, in fact, the first respondent had collected sand from the river and enjoyed the benefits of the licence given by the Panchayat. Since the second respondent is incapacitated to resist the suit claim, petitioner should be allowed to come on record, after ordering his impleadment as a co-defendant in the suit, was the case advanced for moving an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. The learned Sub Judge, after considering the merit of the application and hearing the counsel on both sides, dismissed that application. Ext.P9 is copy of that order. Impeaching the correctness and propriety of that order, the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the second respondent. Though the first respondent has been served, he has not entered appearance. 4. Having regard to the submissions made and the facts and W.P.C.No.6211/09 - 3 - circumstances presented with reference to Ext.P9 order and the materials produced with the Writ Petition, I find no impropriety or illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Sub Judge declining the request of the petitioner to get himself impleaded as a co-defendant in a suit filed by the first respondent against the second respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in possession of records disproving the suit claim set up by the 1st respondent and as a person interested in the wellbeing and affairs of the Panchayat, he should be impleaded as a co-defendant. Though the suit does not fall within a 'Public Interest Litigation', the second respondent should be given opportunity to protect the interest of the local authority, when it cannot resist the suit claim for one reason or the other, is the submission of the learned counsel. I am not impressed by the submissions. If the petitioner is really and genuinely interested in protecting the interest of the 2nd respondent- local authority and if he has a case that the first respondent had collected sand during the period of his licence and his claim raised in the suit is not sustainable, which can be established with documentary evidence in his possession, then, the proper course is to file a separate suit against both the respondents, the plaintiff in the W.P.C.No.6211/09 - 4 - suit and the local authority seeking appropriate reliefs. So far as the present suit is concerned, first respondent/plaintiff is the master of the suit and he should be given an opportunity as against whom he should seek relief. In the suit, in the given facts of the case, the petitioner cannot be permitted to be impleaded as a co-defendant to resist the suit claim, which is raised only against the local authority, the 2nd respondent. The Writ Petition is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE