1994 (9) TMI 38 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Applicability of Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.
- Interpretation of Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure in relation to proceedings under Article 226.
- Lack of specific rules regarding impleading parties in proceedings under Article 226 by the High Court.
- Authority of the High Court to regulate proceedings under Article 226 and implead parties.

Analysis:
The judgment by Jaspal Singh J. delves into the issue of whether Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The judge references the Supreme Court case of Prabodh Verma v. State of U. P., AIR 1985 SC 167, which emphasizes the importance of having persons vitally affected by the judgment as respondents in such cases. The senior advocate, Mr. P. N. Lekhi, argues that Order 1, Rule 10 does not apply to Article 226 proceedings, supported by judgments from the Kerala High Court. The judge notes the amendment to Section 141 of the Code in 1976, explicitly excluding Article 226 proceedings from its purview.

Furthermore, the judgment discusses the absence of specific rules regarding impleading parties in Article 226 proceedings by the High Court. It highlights that while the Code of Civil Procedure provisions do not apply, Article 225 of the Constitution empowers High Courts to make rules for such proceedings. However, it is noted that the specific High Court in question has not framed any rule regarding impleading parties in Article 226 proceedings.

The judgment then reflects on the legal position established in Prabodh Verma case, emphasizing the necessity of having vitally affected parties as respondents in Article 226 writ petitions. The judge suggests a solution to the challenge of impleading such parties in the absence of applicable procedural rules. It is concluded that a vitally affected person can request to join the proceedings, and the court, utilizing inherent powers and principles of justice, can make them a respondent despite the lack of specific rules or applicability of Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Lekhi regarding the application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code to implead a party in a writ petition. The judge clarifies that, based on the legal principles discussed, a vitally affected person can be made a respondent in an Article 226 proceeding through the court's inherent powers, even in the absence of specific rules or the applicability of relevant Code provisions.