Patna High Court
Jyoti PrakashversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The writ petition was dismissed as defective for non‑joinder of necessary parties, and the Court cannot decide the matter without those parties being properly impleaded.
Summary
The petitioners, who are practising advocates and mediators, challenged the validity of the Bihar Civil Procedure (Mediation) (Amendment) Rule, 2019, alleging it was enacted without legislative jurisdiction and contrary to Supreme Court‑mandated mediation policy. The Court noted that earlier orders required the petitioners to implead newly appointed mediators, who could be prejudiced if the rule were set aside, but the petitioners failed to serve notice despite multiple extensions. The petition also sought quashing of specific memos and office orders approving the empanelment of mediators and advocates. Relying on precedents that a court cannot pass adverse orders against persons not made parties, the Court held that the writ petition was defective for non‑joinder of necessary parties. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as bad and illegal to continue without the required respondents.
Issues considered
- Whether the Bihar Civil Procedure (Mediation) (Amendment) Rule, 2019 is within the legislative competence and valid.
- Whether the High Court can decide the writ petition without impleading the newly appointed mediators and other persons vitally affected by the judgment.
- Whether the orders approving the empanelment of mediators and advocates can be quashed on the ground of procedural irregularity.
- Whether the petitioners' failure to serve notice on the newly added respondents defeats the writ petition.
Subjects
- mediation
- civil procedure
- writ petition
- natural justice
- impleadment
- jurisdiction
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14167 of 2023
======================================================
1. Jyoti Prakash, Son of Late H. K. Sahay, Resident of 1-144, A. G. Colony,
P.S.- Shastrinagar, District- Patna.
2. Jawahar Prasad Singh, Son of late Kedar Narayan Singh, Resident of
Village- Bhasti, P.S.-Sonbarsa, District- Saharsa.
3. Krishan Bihari, son of Late Rajeshwar Prasad, resident of house No.23,
Kailash Enclave, Sheopuri, Police Station-Shastri Nagar, District-Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna-
800001.
2. The Chief Secretary, State of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna-800001.
3. The Department of Law through its Secretary -Cum- Legal Remembrance,
Government of Bihar, Patna-800001.
4. The Secretary -Cum- Legal Remembrance, Department of Law, Government
of Bihar, Patna- 800001.
5. The Department of Finance through its Principal Secretary, Government of
Bihar, Patna-800001.
6. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar,
Patna-800001.
7. The Patna High Court through its Registrar General, Bihar, Patna-800004.
8. The Registrar General, Patna High Court, Patna- 800004.
9. The Patna High Court Mediation Committee, through its Convener, Patna
High Court, Patna- 800004.
10. The Convener, Patna High Court Mediation Committee, Patna High Court,
Patna-800004
11. The Patna High Court Mediation Center, through its In-charge Coordinator,
Patna High Court, Patna- 800004
12. The In-charge Coordinator, Patna High Court Mediation Committee, Patna
High Court, Patna- 800004.
13. The Patna High Court Legal Services Committee, through its Secretary,
Patna High Court, Patna- 800004.
14. The Secretary, Patna High Court Legal Services Committee, Patna High
Court, Patna-800004.
15. The Bihar State Legal Services Authority, through its Member Secretary,
Budha Marg, Opposite Patna Museum, Patna-800004.
16. The Member Secretary, Bihar State Legal Service Authority, Budha Marg,
Opposite Patna Museum, Patna-800004.
17. The Union of India through its Secretary, Law and Justice, New Delhi.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14167 of 2023 dt. 13-03-2026
2/15
18. The Secretary, Law and Justice, New Delhi.
19. The National Legal Service Authorities through its Member Secretary,
12/11, Jamnagar House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110011.
20. The Member Secretary, National Legal Service Authorities, 12/11, Jamnagar
House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110011.
21. The Supreme Court of India through its Registrar General, Tilak Marg,
Mandi House, New Delhi, Delhi 110201.
22. The Registrar General, Supreme Court of India, Tilak Marg, Mandi House,
New Delhi, Delhi 110201.
23. The Mediation and Conciliation Committee, through its Member Secretary,
Supreme Court of India, Tilak Marg, Mandi House, New Delhi, Delhi
110201.
24. The Member Secretary, Mediation and Conciliation Committee, Supreme
Court of India, Tilak Marg, Mandi House, New Delhi, Delhi 110201.
25. Prashant Kumar, son of Indrasen Kumar, Resident of 102, Om Sai Enclave,
Road No.- 2A, P.O.- Keshari Nagar, P.S.- Pataliputra, District- Patna, Bihar.
[email protected]
26. Chandra Mohan Jha, son late Shambhu Nath Jha, Flat No.- 203, Raj Kumari
Villa, Sankat Mochan Path, Sakat Vihar, Anishabad, Patna. Email-
[email protected]
27. Archana Sinha @ Shashi, wife of Alok Kumar Shahi, Geeta Sadan, Park
Road, P.S.- Kadam Kuan, Patna, Bihar. Email
[email protected]
28. Prashant Sinha, son of Shailendra Kumar Sinha, Resident of Avkash Road
No.- 15, P.O.- Karseri Nagar, P.S.- Rajiv Nagar, District- Patna, Bihar.
[email protected]
29. Anisur Rahman, son of late Gulam Bari, Resident of Muradpur Masjid, P.O.-
Bankipur, P.S.- Pirbahore, District- Patna, Bihar. Email-
[email protected]
30. Uday Kumar, son of Late Janeshwar Singh, Sheikhpura Near Goriya Asthan,
P.O.- BV College, Patna- 14, Bihar. Email- [email protected]
31. Gaurav Govind, son of Late Surya Narayan Kishore, The Bharti Press
Building, Mihtapur, P.O.- G.P.O, P.S.- Jakkanpur District- Patna, 01 Bihar.
[email protected]
32. Jitendra Acharya, son of Late Raj Kumar Acharya, Resident of House No.-
CA/16. P.C. Colony- P.O.- Lohia Nagar P.S.- Kankarbagh, District-Patna-
20, Bihar. Email- [email protected]
33. Saket Tiwary, son of Nandi Pati Tiwary, Resident of House No.- CH-15,
Road No.- 2, Sri Krishna Nagar, Patna- 01, Bihar. Email-
[email protected]
34. Hemant Kumar Srivastav, son of Late Badri Narayan Srivastav, Resident of
Tej Pratap Nagar, Santivihar P.O.-Anisabad, Beaure, Patna, Bihar. Email-
[email protected]
35. Kumar Vikram, son of Rameshwar Prasad Singh, Resident of Shashi Kunj,
Adjacent B.D. Public School, Buddha Colony, Patna- 01, Bihar. Email-
Patna High Court CWJC No.14167 of 2023 dt. 13-03-2026
3/15
[email protected]
36. Shatrughana Pandey, son of Late Sheo Kumar Pandey, Resident of Road
No.-1, Adarsh Colony, Khemni Chak, Near of P.C.S, Patna, Bihar. Email-
[email protected]
37. Ashutosh Singh, son of Tej Narayan Singh, Resident of Jagat Narayan Road,
P.O.-KadamKuan, P.S.- Kadam Kuan, District-Patna- 03, Bihar. Email-
[email protected]
38. Vevekanand Singh, son of Ram Ekbal Singh, Resident of Dhanraj Tower,
302, Khagaul Road, Nageswari Nagar Danapur, Patna, Bihar. Email
[email protected]
39. Kuber Pathak, son of Ram Nath Pathak, Resident of House No.- 3/1A,
Shivpuri, Patna 23, Bihar. Email- [email protected]
40. Dhirendra Kumar, son of Sachidanand Singh, Resident of Radhika Kunj,
Saketpuri, Bahadurpur, Rajendra Nagar, Patna- 16, Bihar. Email-
[email protected]
41. Shashi Priya Pathak, wife of Ambrish Kumar Jha, Resident of B-24, Phase-
II, R.D Tower, East Nehru Nagar, Patna- 13, Bihar. Email-
[email protected]
42. Sanjeev Verma, son of Late Ashok Kumar Verma, Resident of Van Vihar
Colony, Ashiyana Nagar, District- Patna. Email- [email protected]
43. Vasant Vikas, son of Surendra Prasad Srivastav, Resident of Sri Nagar, Main
Road, AG Colony, Board Colony, District- Patna Email-vasant
[email protected]
44. Shubesh Pandey, son of Late P.N. Pandey, Resident of Sahdeo Path, Patel
Nagar, Patna- 23. Email- [email protected]
45. Dharmendra Kumar Paswan, son of Late Ramprit Paswan, Resident of Bari
Isshupur, P.O.- Hazipur, P.S.- Industrial, District- Vaishali, Bihar Email-
[email protected]
46. Md. Obaidullah, son of Haider Ali, Resident of Road No.- 15, P.O.- Haroon
Nagar-2, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, District- Patna, Bihar, Email-
[email protected]
47. Abhitabh Kumar, son of Late Surendra Pathak, Resident of B- 170, P.C.
Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna- 20, Bihar. Email- [email protected]
48. Satyendra Rai, son of Late Keshwar Rai, Resident of Shaktipuram Colony,
P.S.- Rajiv Nagar, Patna, Bihar. Email- [email protected]
49. Alka Verma, Daughter of Chandra Deo Prasad, Resident of 106, Jaishree
Complex, Nageshwar Colony, Boring Road, P.O.- Boring Road, P.S.- Budha
Colony, District-Patna, Bihar. Email [email protected]
50. Shashi Ranjan, son of Late Girjanand Prasad Azad, Resident of RP Khatri
Path, Gurhatta, Haman, P.O.-Patna City, P.S.- Khajkala, District- Patna,
Bihar. [email protected]
51. Murlidhar Mishra, son of Late Anant Lal Mishra, Resident of Sahdeo Path,
Patel Nagar, Patna- 23, Bihar. Email [email protected]
52. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, son of Basudeo Chandra Sinha, Resident of Prof. B C
Sinha, village- Kashipur, P.O.- Kashipur, P.S.- Samastipur, District-
Patna High Court CWJC No.14167 of 2023 dt. 13-03-2026
4/15
Samastipur, Bihar. [email protected]
53. Amaresh, son of Late Ram Naresh Prasad Sinha, Resident of 7HF1/2 B N
Colony, Bahadurpur, P.O.- Bahadurpur, District- Patna- 26, Bihar. Email-
[email protected]
54. Lakmesh Marvind, son of Late Dindyal Prasad, Resident of Diwam
Mohalla, Nauzarghat Lane, Patna- 08, Bihar. Email-
[email protected]
55. Harendra Prasad, son of Late Bhagwat Prasad, Resident of Vishawnbharpur,
P.S.- Vishawmbharpur, District- Gopalganj, Bihar Email-
[email protected]
56. Kumar Gangesh Gunjan, son of Sachidanand Sinha, Resident of 202 Lap
Tower, Biscoman Colony, Near Pyare Lal Ka Bagh, Patna, Bihar Email-
[email protected]
57. Kundan Kumar, son of Surya Narayan Mahto, Resident of Flat No.- 303,
Ramdev Residency, Sarvoday Nagar, East Gola Road, Danapur, Patna- 03,
Bihar. Email [email protected]
58. Nutan Sahay, wife of Ravi Nandan Sahay, Resident House No.- 14,
Ashiyana Nagar, Digha Road, Patna- 14, Bihar. Email-
[email protected]
59. Nafisuzzoha, son of Md. Irfannuz Zoha, Resident of G- 4B, Arman
Apartment, M.R Colony, P.O.- Phulwarisharif, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, District-
Patna, Bihar. [email protected]
60. Bajrangi Lal, son of Moti Lal, Resident of Pavitra Apartment, D.V.C Road,
New Yarpur, Gardanibagh, Road No.- 1, Patna- 01, Bihar. Email-
[email protected]
61. Arun Kumar, son of Ramanadan Singh, PIT Colony, L1/24, P.O.- Lohiya
Nagar, Kankarbag Patna- 20, Bihar. Email- [email protected]
62. Sanjay Kumar, son of Suredra Prasad Yadav, Resident of Krishna Nagar,
Naya Tola, Saguna More, District- Patna- 03, Bihar. Email-sanjay
[email protected]
63. Ranjan Kumar Sinha, son of Late Kishor Prasad, Flat No.- 203, Ramrati
Manson, Saguna More-Near Keshav Hospital, Patna, Bihar. Email-
[email protected]
64. Ravi Bhaushan Prasad Sinha, son of Chandra Bhusan Prasad, Resident of
Flat LIG- 68, Kankarbag- 20, Patna, Bihar. Email-
[email protected]
65. Arun Srivatava, son of Late Guru Chandra Srivatava, Resident of G-73,
People Cooperative Colony, Kankarbag, Patna- 20, Bihar. Emial-
[email protected]
66. Birendra Narayan Sharma, son of Satya Narayan Sharma, Resident of
Mithapur, Khaugal Road, East of Yarpur Over Bridge, P.O.- GPO, Patna- 01,
Bihar. Email- [email protected]
67. Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha, son of Late Kamta Prasad, Ramanand
Apartment, Flat No.- 304, Budha Colony, Patna, Bihar. Email-
[email protected]
Patna High Court CWJC No.14167 of 2023 dt. 13-03-2026
5/15
68. Arbind Nath Pandey, son of Late Tripti Nath Pandey, Resident of Flat No.-
202, Anpurna Bihar Appartment, Ved Nagar, Bailey Road, Patna- 14, Bihar.
[email protected]
69. Binay Kumar, son of Shyamta Prasad Sharma, Resident of Mitra Mandal
Colony, Sector-D, Anishabad, Patna- 2, Bihar. Email
[email protected]
70. Pushpa Sinha, D/o- Ramjeevamn Prasad, Resident of Flat No.- 2, Sangeeta
Laxmi Apartment, Rai Ram Path, Nehru Nagar, Patna. Email-
[email protected]
71. Alok Kumar, Son of Dinesh Naraian, Resident of Madhu Satya, 4 Sundar
Bhawan, Kannulal Road, Mithapur, Patna. Email- [email protected]
72. Manoj Kumar, son of Late Manohar Sah, Resident of A/18, Surbhi Gali,
New Jakkanpur, Mithapur, Patna. Email- [email protected]
73. Binod Bihari Sinha, son of Late Surendera Nath Sinha, Resident of Flat No.-
101, Magestic Laxmi Apartment, Road No.- 3 Ashok Nagar, Patna. Email-
[email protected]
74. Amrendera Narayan, son of Late Laxmi Narayan Das, Resident of Rajendera
Nagar, Road no.- 182, Crossing, Patna- 03. Email- [email protected]
75. Ajay Nandan Sahay, son of late Bechanji @ Sambhunath Sahay, Resident of
house of Mr. Raju Yadav, Gali No.- 3, Lalji Tola, Patna. Email-ajay Sahay
619@ gmail.com
76. Renu Jha, D/o- Ramakant Chaudhary, Resident of Lal Bahadur Sastri Nagar,
Patna- 20 Email- [email protected]
77. Mr. Ravi Shankar Sahay, Son of late Jaggata Nand Sahay, Resident of Kesri
Nagar, Near Baba Chauk, Patel Nagar, Patna. Email- [email protected]
78. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Son of late Rajeswar Prasad Singh, Resident of House
No.- 51, Road No.- 9c, Rajiv Nagar, Patna. Email-
[email protected]
79. Shaheen Begum, Late Hashanuddin Haider, Resident of Chirayartard, Near
High school Gali More, Patna. [email protected]
80. Arun Kumar Singh, Son of late Daroga Singh, Resident of Ranjan path,
Lane no.- 03, Opposite Bailey Road, Danapur Cant, Patna. Email
[email protected]
81. Ratnesh Kumar Singh, Son of Late Shyam Bihari Singh, Resident of
Prashya Sadan, Riding Road, Sheikhpura, Patna. Email-
[email protected]
82. Anil Kumar Roy, Son of Sri Ramesh Chandra Roy, Resident of Opposite of
pillar No.- 39, Raja Bazar, Bailey Road, P.P- BVC, Patna- 14. Email-
[email protected]
83. Binay Kumar Singh (Retd.PJ) son of Jatan Singh, Resident of New Gandak
Pool Road, Narayan Nagar, Hazipur, Vaishali, Bihar, 844101. Email-
[email protected]
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
Patna High Court CWJC No.14167 of 2023 dt. 13-03-2026
6/15
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P. K. Shahi, Advocate General
Mr. Vikash Kumar, AC to AG
For the Patna High Court : Mr. Piyush Lall, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR)
Date : 13-03-2026
We have heard the learned Advocate for the respective
parties.
2. The writ petitioners before this Court are practicing
Advocates and Mediator duly trained in the Patna High Court,
Patna, have challenged the validity of the Bihar Civil Procedure
(Mediation) (Amendment) Rule, 2019, which is said to have
been enacted without legislative jurisdiction and contrary to the
scheme and object of mediation formulated by the order of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. Direction has also been sought for
payment of arrears of fee and its enhancement, implementation
mediation schemes in its true spirit, restructuring of the
Mediation committee, creating of financial head for mediation
center and change of administrative setup of the Patna High
Court Mediation Center for its betterment management.
3. Without delving into the merit of the case, it would
be pertinent to take note of the fact that earlier when the matter
was taken up on 06.12.2023, the learned Advocate General
Patna High Court CWJC No.14167 of 2023 dt. 13-03-2026
7/15
raised an objection that the new mediators, who were duly
appointed have not been impleaded and the writ petition may
affect their rights also, in such circumstance, this Court had
directed to implead them within a period of four weeks.
4. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner filed an
application on 13.01.2024 to implead the persons, who have
been newly appointed, however, it was submitted that that the
petitioners claim no relief against the said persons. This Court
after hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioners
categorically observed that the attempt of the writ petitioners
seems to be to wriggle out of the responsibility of taking out
notice to all the other respondents and accordingly did not
accept the statement of the learned Counsel that the petitioners
do not claim any relief against the newly appointed mediators. It
was made clear that if the rule challenged is set aside,
necessarily their appointment would be in peril and in such
circumstance, they have to be heard since serious prejudice will
be caused to them. Thus, in the aforesaid premise, the
petitioners were directed that they ensure that the petition for
impleadment is filed properly.
5. In deference to the order of this Court, an
interlocutory application, bearing I.A. No. 3 of 2024 has been
Patna High Court CWJC No.14167 of 2023 dt. 13-03-2026
8/15
filed for amendment of the writ petition, as also incorporating
the subsequent development and adding the necessary party, as
respondents, accordingly vide order dated 23.01.2024
considering the averments made in the interlocutory application,
the same was allowed and notices were issued to the newly
added respondents under both process, i.e., ordinary as well as
registered post with A.D., for which necessary requisites were
directed to be filed within a period of two weeks.
6. During the pendency of the present writ petition,
one more interlocutory application, bearing I.A. No. 4 of 2024
came to be filed seeking modification of the order dated
23.01.2024, whereby this Court has been pleased to allow the
amendment for impleading the parties and had issued notices.
This Court has also been informed that during the pendency of
the writ petition, 36 Mediators, including the petitioners were
removed from the Mediators panel of the Patna High Court after
enactment of Mediation Act on 15.09.2023. Further 40
Advocates were appointed and trained as Mediators and 20
Mediators were retained after approval of the Hon’ble Chief
Justice on recommendation of the Patna High Court Mediation
Centre, Patna. The action of the Patna High Court Mediation
Centre, Patna is said to be wholly without jurisdiction, illegal,
Patna High Court CWJC No.14167 of 2023 dt. 13-03-2026
9/15
void and ab-initio. It is further submitted that issuance of notices
by both process would entail heavy cost upon the petitioners and
thus prayer has been made to modify the order dated 23.01.2024
and allow the petitioners to serve the notices through Dasti
Summons. The Court, however, dismissed I.A. No. 4 of 2024
vide order dated 27.02.2024 and directed the petitioners to take
steps for fresh service of notice upon newly added respondents,
failing which the present writ petition shall stand rejected
against the newly added respondents.
7. Despite the orders having been passed by this
Court, the requisites have not been filed for service of notices
upon the newly added respondents till date and when this matter
was taken up on 24.02.2026, Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Singh, learned
Advocate referring to the earlier order dated 27.02.2024 has
submitted that the writ petition only stood dismissed against the
newly added respondents and still surviving against the
remaining respondents i.e. respondent nos. 1 to 24. It is
vehemently contended that since the writ petition is filed
challenging the validity of the Bihar Civil Procedure
(Mediation) (Amendment) Rule, 2019, (hereinafter referred to
as ‘the Rule, 2019’), hence the matter is required to be heard
and decided on merit, even if the writ petition has been
Patna High Court CWJC No.14167 of 2023 dt. 13-03-2026
10/15
dismissed against the newly added respondent nos. 25 to 83.
8. Mr. Piyus Lall, learned Advocate for respondent
nos. 7 to 16 has submitted that not only the petitioners in
defiance of the repeated orders of this Court have failed to
deposit the requisites for issuance of notices upon the newly
added respondents, the petitioners have also sought an
additional relief by filing an interlocutory application, bearing
I.A. No. 2 of 2023 in the present writ petition seeking a
direction from this Court to call for the decision and
recommendations of the Patna High Court Mediation
Committee, Patna and quash the same upon its production,
besides seeking quashing of Memo No. 1530-53 dated
11.10.2023 issued under the signature of the Registrar-cum-
Coordinator, Patna High Court Mediation Centre wherein on the
basis of the recommendation of the Patna High Court Mediation
Committee, the Hon’ble Chief Justice has been pleased to
approve the list of 20 existing Mediators of the Patna High
Court Mediation Centre for renewal of their tenure for a further
period of three years in terms of Rule 4 of the Rule, 2019. The
petitioners also sought quashing of the Office Order dated
11.10.2023 wherein on the basis of the aforenoted
recommendation, the Hon’ble Chief Justice has been pleased to
Patna High Court CWJC No.14167 of 2023 dt. 13-03-2026
11/15
approve the names of 40 learned Advocates for their
empanelment as Mediator in the Patna High Court Mediation
Centre for the period of three years.
9. Taking this Court through the prayer made in the
interlocutory application, noted hereinabove, he thus submitted
that at one hand the petitioners are challenging the approval of
the names of the learned Advocates for their empanelment as
Mediator in the Patna High Court Mediation Centre, on the
other hand they have knowingly not deposited the requisites for
service of notice upon them, hence the continuation of the writ
proceeding without making the necessary persons, as party
respondents, are wholly bad and illegal.
10. After careful consideration of the submissions led
by the learned Advocates for the respective parties, the primal
question posed before this Court is as to whether in absence of
necessary parties, the High Court ought to decide the writ
petition, who would be vitally affected by its judgment.
11. It is well settled in law that no adverse order can
be passed against a person, who was not made party to the
litigation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while answering the
similar contention raised by the appellant in the case of Ranjan
Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in
Patna High Court CWJC No.14167 of 2023 dt. 13-03-2026
12/15
(2014) 16 SCC 187 noticed the fact that the appellants were not
impleaded as respondents before the High Court and without
taking note of the said aspect, the High Court has invalidated the
selection and nullified their appointments which is violative of
the principles of natural justice, has been pleased to hold that all
the appointees were not impleaded, the writ petition was
defective and hence, no relief could have been granted to the
writ petitioners.
12. It would be worth benefiting here to refer to
paragraph no.28 of the judgment of Prabodh Verma and Others
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in (1984) 4
SCC 251 wherein the three-Judges Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has taken note of the previous rulings passed in
different cases and re-affirmed and reiterated the settled
principle that a High Court ought not to decide a writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who
would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as
respondents or at least by some of them being before it as
respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too
large.
“28. The real question before us, therefore, is the
correctness of the decision of the High Court in the
Sangh case [1979 All LJ 178]. Before we address
Patna High Court CWJC No.14167 of 2023 dt. 13-03-2026
13/15
ourselves to this question, we would like to point
out that the writ petition filed by the Sangh suffered
from two serious, though not incurable, defects.
The first defect was that of non-joinder of
necessary parties. The only respondents to the
Sangh's petition were the State of Uttar Pradesh
and its concerned officers. Those who were vitally
concerned, namely, the reserve pool teachers, were
not made parties — not even by joining some of
them in a representative capacity, considering that
their number was too large for all of them to be
joined individually as respondents. The matter,
therefore, came to be decided in their absence. A
High Court ought not to decide a writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution without the
persons who would be vitally affected by its
judgment being before it as respondents or at least
by some of them being before it as respondents in a
representative capacity if their number is too large,
and, therefore, the Allahabad High Court ought not
to have proceeded to hear and dispose of the
Sangh's writ petition without insisting upon the
reserve pool teachers being made respondents to
that writ petition, or at least some of them being
made respondents in a representative capacity, and
had the petitioners refused to do so, ought to have
dismissed that petition for non-joinder of necessary
parties.”
13. Having considered the enunciation of the law, as
Patna High Court CWJC No.14167 of 2023 dt. 13-03-2026
14/15
referred hereinabove, as also the prayer made by the writ
petitioners in I.A. No. 02 of 2023 seeking quashing of Memo
No. 1530-53 dated 11.10.2023 whereby 20 existing Mediators
of the Patna High Court Mediation Centre for their renewal has
been approved by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Patna High Court
based upon the recommendation of the Patna High Court
Mediation Committee and further approval has also been made
to the names of 40 learned Advocates for their empanelment as
Mediator in the Patna High Court Mediation Centre in terms
with the prescription of the amended Rule, 2019, this Court
prima facie found that the learned Advocates, whose names
were approved for their empanelment are necessary parties and
any order passed in the present writ petition would certainly
vitally affect them.
14. In the aforesaid premises, this Court had already
rejected the contention of the learned Advocate for the
petitioners that no relief has been sought for against the newly
appointed Mediators and thus directed to implead the necessary
persons as party respondents and accordingly in pursuance
thereof the petitioners have also taken steps to implead them as
party respondents, but failed to deposit the requisites for service
of notices upon them in defiance with the order of this Court.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14167 of 2023 dt. 13-03-2026
15/15
Hence, this Court is of the opinion that further continuation of
the writ petition is wholly bad and illegal on both counts, as
discussed hereinabove.
15. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(Harish Kumar, J)
Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ: I agree
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
uday/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 24.02.2026
Uploading Date 13.03.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…