Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rashmi Metaliks Limited vs . State Of H.P. & Another on 25 July, 2022
Bench: Sabina, Satyen Vaidya
Rashmi Metaliks Limited Vs. State of H.P. & Another .
CWP No.3268 of 2022 25.07.2022 Present: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Jaswal, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 & 2.
Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Ragini Dogra & Mr. Anurag Abhishek, Advocates for respondent No.3.
r CMP No. 8376 of 2022.
Applicant has moved the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for impleadment as respondent No.3 in the writ petition.
Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Ragini Dogra, Advocate for the applicant, has submitted that various allegations have been made against the applicant in the writ petition. However, applicant has not been impleaded as respondent in the writ petition, although, applicant is a necessary party.
Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Rakesh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner, on the other hand, has opposed the application and has submitted that applicant cannot be described as a necessary party.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the writ petition, we are of the opinion that the application deserves to be allowed.
::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2022 20:04:40 :::CISA perusal of the writ petition reveals that .
allegations have been levelled against the applicant in the writ petition to the effect that the tender process has been cancelled with a view to help the cause of the applicant. It has also been alleged that the Condition No. 32(x) was altered only at the asking of the applicant and the object of introducing the said r to condition was to disqualify the petitioner.
Thus, specific allegations have been levelled against the applicant in the writ petition. Therefore, applicant can be said to be a necessary party.
Accordingly, the application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be impleaded as respondent No.3.
CWP No. 3268 of 2022.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to file amended memo of parties within a period of one week.
Learned counsel for respondent No.3, seeks time to file reply.
List again on 17th August, 2022.
Interim order to continue.
(Sabina)
Judge
(Satyen Vaidya)
July 25, 2022 (ps) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2022 20:04:40 :::CIS