Skip to content


Raja Dharampal Singh Vs. Director, Small Industries Services Institute and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 929 of 1978
Judge
Reported inAIR1980SC1888; 1980Supp(1)SCC505
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226
AppellantRaja Dharampal Singh
RespondentDirector, Small Industries Services Institute and ors.
Excerpt:
civil - eviction - article 226 of constitution of india - high court held union of india not represented as party in eviction application so eviction order unjustified - apex court held three respondents sufficiently represented union of india thus high court not justified in setting aside eviction order - held, eviction order justified. - [b.p. sinha, c.j.,; j.c. shah,; j.r. mudholkar,; k. subba rao,; m. hidayatullah, jj.] the ruler of the state of sant had issued a tharao dated 12th march 1948, granting full right and authority to the jagirdars over the forests in their respective villages. pursuant to the agreement dated march 19, 1948, the state of sant merged with the dominion of india. on october 1, 1948, shree v. p. menon, secretary to the government of india, wrote a letter to..........by the second additional distt. judge, agra, has been set aside by the high court is that the union of india was not impleaded as a party in the application for eviction made by the appellant before the prescribed authority. this is a hyper-technical plea taken by the respondents which does not deserve any consideration, since the director, small industries services institute, secretary to the government of india, ministry of industrial development and the deputy director/ office-in-charge of the small industries services institute were all joined as parties in the application for eviction and an order for eviction was sought against them. it is common ground between the parties that the premises were occupied by the small industries services institute and the director and the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The only ground on which the order for eviction passed by the Prescribed Authority and confirmed by the Second Additional Distt. Judge, Agra, has been set aside by the High Court is that the Union of India was not impleaded as a party in the application for eviction made by the appellant before the Prescribed Authority. This is a hyper-technical plea taken by the respondents which does not deserve any consideration, since the Director, Small Industries Services Institute, Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Industrial Development and the Deputy Director/ Office-in-charge of the Small Industries Services Institute were all joined as parties in the application for eviction and an order for eviction was sought against them. It is common ground between the parties that the premises were occupied by the Small Industries Services Institute and the Director and the Deputy Director, who were in charge of the affairs of the Institute sufficiently represented the interest of the Union of India and so also did the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Industrial Development, who was the Secretary in overall charge of the Institute. The High Court was, in our opinion, clearly wrong in setting aside the order of eviction passed in favour of the appellant on the sole ground that the Union of India was not represented in the application for eviction. It is interesting to note that the writ petition which was filed in the High Court challenging the order of eviction was preferred not by the Union of India but by the same three respondents, namely, the Director and the Deputy Director of the Institute and the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Industrial Development. If the contention of the respondents is right, the order of the High Court would also be bad. But we do not think that the contention of the respondents is well founded. The three respondents to the application for eviction, in our opinion, sufficiently represented the Union of India and. therefore, there was no justification for the High Court to set aside the order of eviction. It is a little regrettable that the High Court should have interfered with a fair and just order by relying on a hyper-technicality while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. which is a jurisdiction calculated to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it.

2. We, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court and restore the order of eviction passed in favour of the appellant.

3. The respondents will pay the costs of the appellant.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //