9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (12) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , K. Jain and M.M. Kashyap For The Respondent : Mrs. Shyamla Papu, R.N. Sachthey and Girish Chandra JUDGMENT : The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C.J.--In this matter leave was granted on 30 March, 1972. Leave was confined to the question whether Union of India is a necessary party. Leave was granted because it was contended that there were decisions to support the appellant's cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matters regarding the removal, and, therefore, that is the appropriate party. Reliance was placed in support of the contention on the decision Hari Vishnu Karnath v. Ahmad Syed Isak & Ors.(1). That was a case relating to an Election Petition. The contention was advanced that the Union of India was a necessary party because the Election Commission is required to transmit copies of order of the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was acting under a "notification issued in this behalf' and the Railway Board .was thus invested with all the powers of the Central Government. The High Court held that it was not necessary in that situation for the petitioner in that case to implead the Union Government and it could not be contended that the petition should fail on that ground. There is no discussion on the question now canv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ointment or in the matter of removal. It cannot be denied that any order which will be passed on an application under Article 226 which will have the effect of setting aside the removal will fasten liability on the Union of India, and not on any servant of the Union. Therefore, from all points of view, the Union of India was rightly held by the High Court to be a necessary party. The petition was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
