Lack Of Necessary Parties, Specific Averments In Writ Petition Can't Be Cured By Filing Impleadment Application: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court today dismissed a writ petition on the finding that specific averments should be made against the parties while filing the writ petition itself and they need not be arrayed as parties later by filing an impleading application.The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice G. Girish added that the writ petition lacked specific averments in tune with the reliefs sought for and necessary parties were not arrayed in the party array. “A mere application for impleadment, after the filing of this writ petition, will not serve the purpose, since the writ petition for seeking such a relief should contain specific allegations against the Temple Advisory Committee and its members. In the absence of necessary averments in the writ petition in support of the reliefs sought for and necessary parties in the party array, we find no reason to entertain this writ petition.”In an earlier writ petition (WP (C) No. 20753 of 2023) filed by devotees of Thrippapoor Major Sree Mahadevar Temple, various allegations of financial irregularities against the Temple Advisory Committee were raised. It was disposed of with a direction to the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer ((Superintendent of Police) to conduct an enquiry. The present writ petition was filed seeking two reliefs, firstly, for conducting an audit of accounts of the Temple Advisory Committee. The second relief was seeking a direction to the Travancore Devaswom Board to consider and take action on the report submitted by the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer. The Temple Advisory Committee and its office bearers were not made parties in the writ petition and were later impleaded into the party array. The Court referred to Rule 148 Rules of High Court of Kerala, 1971 to state that all persons who were directly affected shall be made parties to a petition. “ Rule 148 of the Rules of High Court of Kerala, 1971 deals with addition of parties. As per Rule 148, all persons directly affected shall be made parties to the petition. Where such persons are numerous, one or more of them may with the permission of the court on application made of the purpose be impleaded on behalf of or for the benefit of all persons so affected; but notice of the Original Petition shall, on admission, be given to all such persons either by personal service or by public advertisement as the Court in each case may direct.” The Court relied upon Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana (1998), to state that the Court need not entertain a writ petition if facts and evidence in proof of such facts were not pleaded in the writ petition or in the counter affidavit. Relying upon M/s.Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat (1998), the Court stated that issues cannot be raised in a plea without making specific averments. It also referred to the decision in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) and observed that parties have to plead their case and produce sufficient evidence to substantiate the averments made in their plea. It noted that pleadings enable Courts to decide the rights of the parties and petitions need not be entertained on incomplete pleadings. The Court further noted that reliefs not based on pleadings cannot be granted because the decision of a case cannot be based outside its pleadings. The Court also stated that legal or factual issues would not be determined which were not raised by the parties because then the opposite parties would not get a fair opportunity to defend their rights. The Court noted that the second relief sought by the petitioner was to direct the Travancore Devaswom Board to consider and take action on the report submitted by Chief Vigilance and Security Officer. It found that the report consisted of allegations against the Temple advisory committee and its office bearers who were not arrayed as party respondents. The Court held that they were necessary parties and the writ petition should not have been filed without making them party respondents.Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner: Advocate D. AjithkumarCounsel for the respondent: Standing Counsel G Santhosh KumarCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 647Case title: Gopakumar P. v Travancore Devaswom BoardCase number: WP(C) NO. 37283 OF 2023Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

Lack Of Necessary Parties, Specific Averments In Writ Petition Can't Be Cured By Filing Impleadment Application: Kerala High Court

Tellmy Jolly

Tags