Person Seeking Relief Must File A Petition, Can't Claim It As An Intervenor: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reiterates

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has reiterated that if a person wants to seek a relief then he needs to be file a petition, and he cannot claim the relief by filing an application to be impleaded as intervenor.

A division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sudhir Singh said, "It is settled in law that if any person wants to seek a relief, then he/she has to file a petition and cannot come as an intervenor. Even if the present application is allowed, the applicant seeking to intervene would become an additional respondent, but cannot claim any relief in the petition as petitioner."

The Court was hearing an application to put forth the "circumstances" and practice of the Domestic Violence Act wherein Sector 13 of the Act is not implemented. The application was filed by the applicant–an individual not party to the main matter– who had sought to be impleaded as an intervenor by bringing on record some further additional pleadings and making a particular prayer. 

As per Section 13, a notice of the date of hearing fixed under section 12 shall be given by the Magistrate to the Protection Officer, who shall get it served by such means as may be prescribed on the respondent, and on any other person, as directed by the Magistrate within a maximum period of two days or such further reasonable time as may be allowed by the Magistrate from the date of its receipt.

The application stated that it had taken years for the respondent to respond.

The main matter pertains to a PIL concerning the mechanism for implementation of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence and that Protection Officers in terms of Section 8 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, have not been appointed in the every District in the States of Punjab, Haryana and U.T., Chandigarh.

After examining the submissions, the Court opined that a new petition needs to be filed and the said that the application is "mis-placed and is, therefore, dismissed as such."

The Court also clarified that even if the present application is allowed, the applicant seeking to intervene would become an additional respondent, but cannot claim any relief in the petition as petitioner.

Case Title: Sharmila Sharma v. Union of India and others

Ms. Sharmila Sharma, Advocate (petitioner-in-person).

Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India (UOI), with Ms. Shreyansi Verma, Central Government Counsel, for respondents No. 1 and 2.

Mr. Deepak Balyan, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

Mr. Abhinav Sood, Advocate, Ms. Achintaya Soni, Advocate, Ms. Mehndi, Advocate, for respondent No. 5 – U.T., Chandigarh.

Mr. Kanwar Pahul Singh, Advocate, for the applicant in CM-182-CWPIL-2024.

Click here to read/download the order