UDIT NARAIN SINGH MALPAHARIA versus ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR

Citation: [1963] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 676 · Decided: 19-10-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1#1 
Oct1kr, 19. 
676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) SUPP. 
UDIT NARAIN SINGH MALPAHARIA 
v. 
ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF 
REVENUE, BIHAR 
(S. J. !MAM, K SUBBA RAO, N. RAJAGOPALA 
AYYAN!UR and]. R. MUDHOT,KAR, JJ.) 
Writ Petition-Writ of certiorari-Necessary and Proper 
parties-Constitution of India, Art. 226. 
The settlement of a country liquor shop was made by 
a lot drawn in favour of oneJadu Manjhi after cancellation of 
the license of the previous licensee. 
The previous licensee 
preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Excise which 
wa• dismissed and then he preferred a revision to the Board of 
Revenue, Bihar and obtained stay of the settlement of the shop. 
Later on, the Board of Revenue dismissed his petition,andJadu 
Man jhi also died. Thereafter a fresh lot was drawn in favour of 
the appellant against which the previous ,licensee ubtained stay 
from the revenue court, but his petition was dismissed and after 
the furnishing of security on September 11, 1961, the shop was 
settled with tbe appellant and licerrse was i'3ued to him. On 
June 19, 1961, one Phudan Manjhi son ofJadu Manjhi filed a 
petition before the Deputy Commissioner for the substitution of 
his name in the place of his father which was rejected. 
Against 
that order he preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of 
Excise who remanded the case to the Deputy Commissioner to 
consider the fitness of Phudan Manjhi. One Bhagwn Rajak 
who was not an applicant before the Deputy Commissioner 
filed an application before the Commissioner derranding fresh 
advertisement for the settlement of the shop which was allowed 
and the Deputy Commissioner was directed for taking steps 
for a fresh settlement in acoordance with the rules of the Excise 
Manual. Against that order the appellant filed a petition 
before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed and the 
Deupty t.ommissioner \Vas directed that unless he came to a 
definite conclusion that Phudan Manjhi was unfit to hold the 
license, he should he selected as a licensee in accordance with 
the rules. 
The result wa, that the appellant's license was 
can~ 
celletl and the Deputy Commissioner was directed to hold a 
fresh settlement giving a preferential treatment to Phudan 
Manjhi. The appellant filed a petition under Art._ 226 of t~e 
Constitution in 'the High Court to quash the said orders, m 
which neither Phud11n Manjhi nor Bhagwan Rajak in whose 
I 
1 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT RF.PORTS 
6'17 
favour the Board of Revenue decided the petition were made 
parties. The Hi~h Court dismissed the petition in)imine. In 
this Court a preliminary objection was raised by the respondents 
that since Phudan Manjhi and Bhagwan Rajak were not made 
parties, who were necessa1y parties to the writ petition, the 
High Court was justified in dismissing the petition. It was 
urged by the appellant that in such a writ the said tribunal or 
authority is the only necessary party and the parties in whose 
favour the said tribunal or authority made an order or created 
rights are not necessary parties but may at best be only proper 
parties and even at this very late stage it is open to this court to 
diroct the implcading of the said parties. 
Held, that a necessary party is oni.' without whom no order 
can be made effectively; a proper party is one in whose absence 
an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary 
for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the 
proceeding. 
A writ of certiorari lies only in respect of a judicial or 
quasi-judicial act and a tribunal performing a judicial or quasi-
judicial act cannot decide against the rights of a party wifhout 
fiving him a hearing or an opportunity to represent his case. 
If the provisions of a particular statute or rules made thereunder 
do not provide for it. principles of natural justice demand it. 
Any such order made without hearing the affected parties would 
be void. As a writ of ce·rtiorari will be granted to i remove the 
record of proceedings of an inferior tribunal or authority per· 
forming judicial or quasi-judicial acts, ex kypothesi it follows 
that the High Court in exercising its jurisdiction shall also act 
judicially in disposing of the proceedings before it. 
In a w~it of certiorari not only the tribunal Of authority 
whose order ts sought to be quashed but also parties in whose 
favour the said order is i•sucd arc nccc•sary parties. But it is 
in the discretion of the Court to add or implead proper parties 
~

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.