Supreme Court - Daily Orders
P. Govind Reddy vs Chief Commissioner on 4 May, 2022
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.3632 OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(C)No.3223 of 2022)
P. GOVIND REDDY & ORS. … APPELLANTS
Versus
CHIEF COMMISSIONER & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
WITH
TRANSFER PETITION(C)NO.630/2022
TRANSFER PETITION(C)NO.631/2022
O R D E R
C.A.No.3632/2022 @ SLP(C)No.3223/2022
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal, by way of special leave, is directed
against interim order dated 21.09.2021 passed by the Division
Bench of the Telangana High Court, whereby the High Court
deleted the name of Commissioner (Appeals) from the array of
appellants while retaining the writ appeal and suo motu
impleading the State of Telangana represented through the
Principal Secretary, Revenue, as an appellant on the ground
that it is a necessary party.
3. The appellants herein are aggrieved by the fact that the High
Court, while agreeing with their submission that the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SATISH KUMAR YADAV
Commissioner (Appeals) was not an appropriate appellant being
Date: 2022.05.17
15:33:38 IST
Reason:
the quasi-judicial authority that had passed the order impugned
in the Writ Petition, did not accede to their submission that
2
the Writ Appeal should be declared non-maintainable on that
ground. Additionally, they are also aggrieved by the fact that
the High Court suo motu impleaded the State as an appellant.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and
carefully perused the material placed on record.
5. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
submitted that the impugned order passed by the High Court
ought to be set aside to the extent that it has suo motu
impleaded the State of Telangana as the second appellant in the
appeal. He further submits that the Writ Appeal was primarily
filed by the Commissioner (Appeals), which is a quasi-judicial
authority and once the Division Bench held that the said appeal
is not maintainable as filed by her, the appeal ought to have
been dismissed in limine on the preliminary ground of non-
maintainability and that there was no occasion for ordering
substitution.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent No.2 – State of Telangana submits that the Division
Bench of the High Court was right in opining that the State is
a necessary party and impleading it suo motu in Writ Appeal
No.1105 of 2017. The State being a necessary party and a proper
party in both the writ petitions, the impugned order does not
deserve interference.
7. The impugned order dated 21.09.21, passed by the High Court of
Telangana is as follows:
“When this Appeal is taken up, it is pointed
out that the Commissioner (Appeals) could not have
3
been joined as an appellant, since his order was
challenged in WP No.9707 of 2009 and the said
order had been set aside on 14.02.2017 in the said
writ petition.
Prima facie, we find force in this
contention.
Therefore, we hold that the 2nd appellant
cannot file this appeal and the Appeal insofar as
he is concerned is not maintainable and he is
struck off form the array of appellants.
Since the State of Telangana, represented by
its Principal Secretary, Revenue, is a necessary
party, we suo moto implead the said party as the
2nd appellant is the Appeal.
Liberty is given to the State Government and
the Additional Advocate General to file fresh
affidavit of the competent authority in
this matter.
Delete from the caption ‘for dismissal’ and
list on 18.10.2021.
It is open to the private respondents to take
all defenses available to them in law in the Writ
Appeal as well as in the counter affidavits to be
filed by them to the affidavit to be filed on
behalf of the appellants seeking Condonation of
delay or suspension of the impugned order”
8. It is explicit from the record that the Commissioner (Appeals)
was the authority that passed the order dated 09.04.2008, which
was challenged by the appellants herein by filing the
underlying writ petitions. This Court is not aware of such an
anomalous situation, where the authority which passes the order
files an appeal against the judgment of a High Court setting
aside the same under its supervisory writ jurisdiction. This
4
goes against all tenets of propriety, and the Division Bench
rightly struck off the Commissioner (Appeals) as an appellant.
9. The deletion of the said appellant, however, does not
necessarily mean that the writ appeal before the Division Bench
of the High Court can be dismissed as non-maintainable on that
ground alone, as other appellants are also a party to the writ
appeal before the High Court. The impugned order cannot
therefore be faulted for the same.
10. However, as the counsel for the appellant rightly pointed out,
the suo motu impleadment of the State as a party appellant by
the High Court vide the impugned order was not the correct
approach. The State is not an unaware litigant, that needs
special treatment or protection from the Court. In the present
case, it cannot be denied that the State was aware of the
proceedings before the High Court, including the order passed
by the Single Judge in the writ petition. They could have
always filed a writ appeal or joined in the present writ appeal
filed by other State functionaries. Additionally, even if the
State was not formally a party, the Chief Commissioner (Land
Administration), Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy and the Mandal
Revenue Officer, Serilingampalli Mandal were party appellants
who could represent the State interests effectively before the
Division Bench.
11. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we are
therefore of the considered opinion that the impugned order
passed by the High Court ought to be set aside to the extent
5
that it has suo motu impleaded the State of Telangana as
appellant No. 2 in the writ appeal.
12. The appeal stands disposed of on the above terms. The parties
shall appear in the writ appeal pending before the High Court
on the date fixed for further proceedings. Taking into
consideration the long pendency of the dispute, which has been
further delayed due to the suo motu impleadment of the State
vide impugned order, we request the High Court to dispose of
the proceedings pending before it expeditiously, preferably
within a period of 6 weeks.
T.P.(C)No.630/2022 and T.P.(C)No.631/2022
1. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner seeks permission to withdraw these petitions.
2. Permission, as prayed for, is granted.
3. The transfer petitions are, accordingly, dismissed as
withdrawn.
.........................CJI.
(N.V. RAMANA)
..............……..........J.
(KRISHNA MURARI)
...............…..........J.
(HIMA KOHLI)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 04, 2022
6
ITEM NO.14 COURT NO.1 SECTION XII-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).3223/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21-09-2021
in WA No.1105/2017 passed by the High Court for the State of
Telangana at Hyderabad)
P. GOVIND REDDY & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
CHIEF COMMISSIONER & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R.)
WITH
T.P.(C) No.630/2022 (XVI-A)
(FOR ADMISSION)
T.P.(C) No.631/2022 (XVI-A)
(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.39938/2022-EX-PARTE STAY)
Date : 04-05-2022 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
For Petitioner(s)
Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ananga Bhattacharyya, Adv.
Mr. Rohit Rao N., Adv.
Ms. Devahuti Tamuli, Adv.
Ms. Ekta Pradhan, Adv.
Ms. Anushka Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shiv Gupta, Adv.
For M/s.Veritas Legis, AOR
For Respondent(s)
Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv.
Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Tyagi, Adv.
Mr. P. Srinivas Reddy, Adv.
For M/s.Venkat Palwai Law Associates, AOR
7
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.3223/2022- Leave granted.
The appeal stands disposed of, in terms of the signed order. T.P.(C) No.630/2022 & T.P.(C) No.631/2022:-
The transfer petitions are dismissed as withdrawn, in terms of the signed order.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (R.S. NARAYANAN) DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH) (Signed Common Order is placed on the file)