# STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR v. V. P. DUGGAL & OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1977] 1 S.C.R. 96
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-07-30
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1207 of 1975
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-punjab-anr-v-v-p-duggal-others-7016
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

96
A
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
v.
V. P. DUGGAL & OTHERS
July 30, 1976
B
· [H. R. KHANNA, R. S. SARKARIA AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JI.]
c
D
E
F
G
H
Practice and procedure-Whether High Court can direct a Minister to be
· impleaded as a party and file his personal affidavit.
The resp9ndent challenged the validity of a Government Notification, and
also the Minister's order upholding the same. At the hearing, the High Court
directed that the concerned Minister be impleaded as a party, and file his
personal affidavit.
Challenging the directions, the appellant contended before
this Court, that the allegations against the Minister did not disclose any
per_sonal animus on his part, and he was not liable to be added as a party or
to file his affidavit.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court,
HELD : The direction for the impleading of the l\·!inister as a party was
given by the High Court with a view to appraise the Minister of the allegations
made in the petition and thus to afford him an opportunity of controverting
those allegations, if he so deemed proper.
We decline to interfere. It is
essentially for the Minister concerned to decide in the light of the allegations
made in the petition as to whether he should or should not file an affidavit.
[97 E-F]

## Text

96
A
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
v.
V. P. DUGGAL & OTHERS
July 30, 1976
B
· [H. R. KHANNA, R. S. SARKARIA AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JI.]
c
D
E
F
G
H
Practice and procedure-Whether High Court can direct a Minister to be
· impleaded as a party and file his personal affidavit.
The resp9ndent challenged the validity of a Government Notification, and
also the Minister's order upholding the same. At the hearing, the High Court
directed that the concerned Minister be impleaded as a party, and file his
personal affidavit.
Challenging the directions, the appellant contended before
this Court, that the allegations against the Minister did not disclose any
per_sonal animus on his part, and he was not liable to be added as a party or
to file his affidavit.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court,
HELD : The direction for the impleading of the l\·!inister as a party was
given by the High Court with a view to appraise the Minister of the allegations
made in the petition and thus to afford him an opportunity of controverting
those allegations, if he so deemed proper.
We decline to interfere. It is
essentially for the Minister concerned to decide in the light of the allegations
made in the petition as to whether he should or should not file an affidavit.
[97 E-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
1207 of
1975.
(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
5-8-1975 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Letters Patent
Appeal No. 459/75).
J. S. Wasu, Adv. General, Punjab and 0. P.
Sharma, for the
appellants.
V. C. Mahajan and S. S. Khanduja, for respondent No. 1.
P. TC Pillai, for respondent No. 13.
The Judgment of th_e Court was delivered by
KHANNA, J . .'.._This is an appeal by special leave by the State of
Punjab against the order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, whereby lit was directed that the Minister in:charge of Irrigation Department
be impleaded as a party in the writ petition filed by V. P. Duggal respondent. The Minister was also directed to file his affidavit.
In the writ petition filed by him, Duggal respondent challenged
notification dated January 29, 1974 fixing the seniority of the engineers
in the Irrigation Department of the Punjab Governm~nt. During the
course of the hearing of the writ petition, an order was made by the
High Court on November 18, 1974 that the Minister concerned might
give a personal hearing to the parties and thereafter pass the necessary
order in the matter. The Minister concerned thereafter heard the
parties and made a speaking order on February 18, 1975 affirming the
earlier seniority list.
The writ petition was thereafter amended, and
'
r
'c,.
PUNJAB v. v. P. DUGGAL (Khanna, /.)
97
dn the amended petiition, Duggal respondent also challenged the validity
.of the later order of February 18, ~975.
At the resumed hearing of the writ petition, the learned Judge
hearing the petition directed that the Minister concerned be impleaded
.as a party in the petition, as in the view of the learned Judge, allegation
had been made against the Minister that he had deviated from the
normal procedure while passing the impugned order dated February
18, 1975 inasmuch as he had dealt with the matter directly and bypassed! the Secretary of the Department. Direction was also issued
that the Minister should file an affidavit in regard to the allegations
made in the petition.
At the hearini;} of the appeal before us, the learned AdvocateGeneral for the State of Punjab has contended that the allegations made
in the amended petition do not disclose any personal animus on the
part of the Minister concerned and as such the High Court was in error
in directing that the Minister be impleaded as a party. The learned
Advocate-General has also assailed the direction of the High Court insofar as the Minister has been called upon to file his personal affidavit.
As against that, Mr. Mahajan on behalf of Duggal respondent has
urged that looking to the facts of the case if the High Court came to
the conclusion that the Minister was a necessary or proper party, this
Court should noti interfere in the matter.
We have given the matter our consiideration, and it seems to us
that the direction for the fmpleading of the Minister as a party was
given by the High Court with a: vie)V to apprise the Minister of the
allegations made in the p~tition and thus to afford him an opportunity
of controverting those allegations, if he so deemed proper. Taking the
totality of the facts and circumst{lnces 0£ the case, we do not feel
persuaded to interfere wjth the order of the High Court adding the
Minister as a party.to the writ petition. The High Court was, however,
in our opinion in error in directing that the Minister concerned should
file his affidavit. It is essentially for the Minister concerned to decide
in the light of the allegations made in the petition \IS to whether he
should or should not file an affidavit. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the order made by the High Court insofar as it has directed·
that the Minister be impleaded as a party. The other part of the order
whereby the Minister co11cerned was directed to file his personal afficlavit is set aside .. The \ll'peal shall stand disposed of accordingly. The
parties in the circumstances shall bear their own costs.
M.R.
Appeal partly allowed.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G