The Chhattisgarh High Court reaffirmed that petitions naming government officers personally, rather than in their official capacity, are defective and not maintainable. The judgment upholds existing procedural requirements and serves as binding precedent for future writ petitions within Chhattisgarh, clarifying mandatory party description norms for all practitioners drafting writs against public officials.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPC/5451/2025 of UJJWAL DIWAN Vs VIJAY AGRAWAL |
| CNR | CGHC010439972025 |
| Date of Registration | 14-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Chhattisgarh |
| Type of Law | Procedural, Writ Jurisdiction (Article 226, Constitution of India) |
| Questions of Law | Whether writ petitions are maintainable when government officials are impleaded by personal names only. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that a writ petition is defective and not maintainable if government officials are impleaded by name rather than in their official capacity. Specifically, the petition was found to be improperly drafted because all government respondents were named personally and not by designation. Accordingly, the Court declined to entertain the petition and granted liberty to withdraw and file afresh with proper cause title. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner sought directions for compensation, permission for holding a conference, and action against officials, but had impleaded all government officers by name, not by designation—rendering the petition procedurally defective. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and practitioners in Chhattisgarh High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts assessing similar preliminary/procedural defects |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates and enforces the requirement that government officials must be impleaded in their official capacity (by designation), not personally, in writ petitions.
- Petitions violating this norm are liable to be dismissed as defective at the threshold stage.
- Counsel are advised to carefully draft cause titles and party array to avoid summary dismissal of petitions.
- The Court may, at its discretion, allow withdrawal with liberty to file afresh with correct party description.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The State’s counsel objected that the petition listed all respondent government officials by their names, rather than in their official/designated capacities.
- The Court scrutinized the petition and concurred with the objection, finding the petition defective for failing to describe respondents by their official designations.
- As a result, the Court declined to entertain the merits of the petition and indicated it could not proceed on such a procedural defect.
- However, upon request from the petitioner’s counsel, the Court allowed withdrawal of the petition, granting liberty to refile with the proper party array.
- No substantive right or relief was examined owing to the threshold procedural infirmity.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought various reliefs, including damages/compensation, permission for a conference, and action against officers.
- Through counsel, requested to withdraw the petition to correct party description and refile with proper cause title after the defect was pointed out.
Respondent (State)
- Raised a preliminary objection asserting that all government officers were impleaded by name, not in their official capacity, rendering the petition defective.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking compensation for financial loss, mental harassment, and reputational damage arising from the cancellation of an event, permission to hold a conference, and action against allegedly culpable officers. Government officials from the district administration and police were named as respondents, but were impleaded by their personal names, rather than by their official designations. The State raised a procedural objection on this ground.
Statutory Analysis
The Court considered the procedural aspect of party description under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the settled requirement that government officials should be impleaded in their official capacity/designation for maintainability of writ petitions. No substantive statutory interpretation was carried out due to the threshold procedural defect.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or practices were set; the Court followed established convention regarding party description in writ petitions.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court reaffirmed and enforced established procedural law without creating new precedent.