IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2011 / 11TH SRAVANA 1933 WA.No. 1101 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.14243/2010 Dated 27/07/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): IMPLEADING PETITIONER ----------------------------------- JIBIRI KANNU, S/O.AHAMMED KANNU, AGED 44, RESIDING AT T.C.46/385, VALLAKADAVU PO, MANIKKAVILAKOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1-6 IN THE WPC -------------------------------------------------------- 1. CHERIAN A PAUL, MANGALATH HOUSE, MUMMY'S COLONY, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU,T THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (GENERAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHY BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 5. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THYCAUD DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 6. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-695 001. 7. SECRETARY, ROAD FUND BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 BY ADV.SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN R2 AND R3 BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVACIS R7 BY ADV.SRI.K.JAJU BABU ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL, SC., TRIDA FOR R6 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1101 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The appeal arises from an order dated 27th July, 2011, whereby I.A.No. 10774 of 2011 filed by the appellant for impleading himself in the proceedings has been dismissed, observing that the presence of the appellant is not necessary in the party array so as to have effective adjudication in the matter. 2. When the matter is taken up for admission, the writ petitioner, who is the first respondent herein, sought to be represented by Advocate Sri.M.Balagovindan. 3. We heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who is the acquisitioning authority and the learned Standing Counsel for the K.S.E.B, the requisitioning authority. Considering the limited nature of the issue involved, we do not find it necessary to issue notice to the other respondents for the time being. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that steps were taken against the writ petitioner under the relevant provisions of the Land Conservancy Act at the instance of the appellant and that much materials have to be brought to light so as to have an effective WA.1101/11 2 adjudication of the issue. The contention as above is sought to be opposed by the learned counsel for the first respondent, who is the writ petitioner. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the contention raised by the first respondent/writ petitioner that the idea of the appellant is only to protract the proceedings is not correct and that the appellant is ready to argue the matter on any day, when the case is listed for hearing. However, after going through the pleadings on record and after hearing the learned counsel on either side, we find that even though the appellant is not a necessary party to the proceedings, it cannot be said that he is not a proper party. In the circumstances, we find that the matter could be finalised by setting aside the impugned order and permit the appellant to be impleaded as an additional respondent in the Writ Petition. We do so. The appeal is allowed as above. No costs. J.CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE vgs