The Himachal Pradesh High Court on Wednesday set aside the plea of Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association (HPCA) to implead chief minister Virbhadra Singh.
A division bench comprising acting Chief Justice Mansoor Ahmed Mir and Justice Kuldip Singh observed, “We, however, wonder why the petitioners have filed an application for arraying non-applicants as party-respondents in terms of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and that is also drafted on November 20, 2013, and filed on November 22, 2013 along with the application for leave to amend, whereas the state had withdrawn its order on November19, 2013, therefore application is misconceived.”
The court also dismissed applications against Kangra district police chief Balbir Singh Thakur, Kangra director general Sanjay Kumar, and Kangra deputy commissioner C Paulrasu, who were the other respondents in the court.
The court added that, admittedly, the petitioners have sought writ of certiorari quashing orders/letters/communications dated October 26, 2013, made by respondents number 1 and 3 to 10- state, which stands withdrawn and has lost life in its entirety. Thus, virtually, the writ petition, so far it relates to the said prayer, has become infructuous.
It is also apt to mention herein that the order made by respondent number 2 is partly in favour of the petitioners and partly against them, and it appears that was why the petitioners have not arrayed respondent number 2 as party in person in the list nor have sought his impleadment in personal capacity on the ground of mala fide or he has acted under some instructions.
It may be mentioned here that state government had withdrawn its order of October 26 of cancellation of leases granted to the HPCA. The HPCA contended that the Registrar cooperative society is acting under the command of the present chief minister therefore they are apprehending a biased decision. He contended that registrar has already filed written statements wherein he has expressed his opinion.
The HPCA has, however, not sought for impleading Registrar Cooperative societies in his personal capacity.
It may be mentioned here that state government had withdrawn its order of October 26 of cancellation of leases granted to the HPCA. The HPCA contended that the Registrar cooperative society is acting under the command of the present chief minister therefore they are apprehending a biased decision. He contended that registrar has already filed written statements wherein he has expressed his opinion.
The HPCA has, however, not sought for impleading Registrar Cooperative societies in his personal capacity.
Advocate general Sharvan Dogra had argued that the HPCA had concealed material facts from the court. He submitted that HPCA had deliberately not brought to the notice of the court that government had withdrawn its letters of taking possession of the HPCA stadiums in its application for amendment of the writ petition.
He contended that writ petition has become infructuous as the relief claimed by the petitioner was already granted by the government by withdrawing its earlier orders. He urged the court to permit the registrar to pass final order against the statutory proceedings pending before him.
It was contended that the allegation leveled by the petitioner were vague and without any specifications. Dogra contended that petitioner had merely attached the newspaper cuttings without even placing on record the entire newspaper or the date of its publication.
Dogra added that there was no material on record to prove any mala fide against the proposed respondents. He contended that the applications were misconceived as the government had already withdrawn its order challenged in this petition.