THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.21327 OF 2009 Dt.8.10.2009 Between: K.Venkata Subbaiah …Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By Its Secretary to Government, Revenue (Endowments) Department, and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.21327 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) The petitioner/applicant filed O.A.SR.No.17748 of 2009 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal impleading – (1) The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary to Government, Revenue (Endowments) Department, (2) The Commissioner of Endowments and (3) Sri Padamati Sundara Kumar, I.A.S., Commissioner of Endowments, in his individual capacity. The office of the Tribunal took an objection about the maintainability of the O.A., against the 3rd respondent in person and the matter was placed before the Tribunal and the learned counsel was heard with regard to the said objection. The office objection was upheld by the Tribunal on the ground that the justification for making an official in person as a party to the proceedings arises only when an order is passed deliberately with mala fide intention to cause damage to the individual with ulterior motive. But the wrong order will not lead to a conclusion that it is vitiated by mala fide intention and the averments in para 6(g) are not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the Commissioner of Endowments has mala fide intention against the applicant. Therefore, no ground is made out to add the Commissioner of Endowments as a party in person. Therefore, the application in so far as the 3rd respondent is concerned was rejected and directed to register the O.A., if it is otherwise in order against respondents 1 and 2 alone. We have perused the O.A., filed before the Tribunal. No averments have been made making allegations against the 3rd respondent in his individual capacity in passing the impugned order. In ground No.6 (g) it was only stated that the impugned order therein was done by the 2nd respondent deliberately to cause wrongful loss to the applicant and also playing fraud on the Court. The 2nd respondent is the Commissioner of Endowments, but not the 3rd respondent in his individual capacity. Therefore, we do not see any specific allegations in any of the paragraphs of the said O.A. But, however, it was prayed to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing Rc.No.E1/12011/ 2005, dated 20.12.2008, amounts to perjury attracting penal provisions of the Indian Penal Code and consequently set aside the said impugned order. When there was no averment in any of the paragraphs in the application, such prayer cannot be made in the relief portion also. But, however, the said order was passed by the 2nd respondent in his official capacity, but not by the person holding office of the 2nd respondent. When the O.A. was rejected against the 3rd respondent, it is for the petitioner to suitably amend the prayer, if he so chooses. Therefore, we do not see any error committed by the Tribunal in rejecting the said O.A. against the 3rd respondent. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 8.10.2009 kpr