A writ petition challenging the selection of certain I. P. Ps. for fuel linkage is not maintainable if the selected applicants are not impleaded as parties, as their interests would be adversely affected by the selection of the petitioner's I. P. P.

( 1 ) SPECIAL leave granted.

( 2 ) THIS appeal arises out of a writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 in the Kerala High Court wherein a writ, order or direction was sought that the eligibility of respondent No. 1 for grant of fuel linkage for Independent Power Projects (I. P. Ps.) to the extent of 100 MW may be considered by the State Government of Kerala.

( 3 ) THE Government of India had allotted a quota of liquid fuel for 660 MW to the State of Kerala. There were a number of applicants requesting for liquid fuel linkage for their I. P. Ps. For the purpose of selection five projects including that of respondent No. 1 were shortlisted. The case of the respondent No. 1 was not recommended to the Central Government for fuel supply. Feeling aggrieved by the said recommendation, respondent No. 1 filed the writ petition which has given rise to this appeal. In the writ petition respondent No. 1 did not implead the other applicants whose I. P. Ps. have been selected for recommendation. The case of respondent No. 1 was that those applicants were not necessary parties because the allotment in their favour was not being assailed and only the policy of the Government in the matter of selection had been challenged. The said writ petition was considered by a learned single Judge of the High Court who, by judgment dated 29/09/1997, dismissed the same. Apart from rejecting the submissions of respondent No. 1 on merits, the learned single Judge was also of the view that the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 could not be maintained in the absence of other applicants who had been selected. The learned single Judge has held :-

"the petitioner is also aware of the restrictions and limitations in the availability of liquid fuel. The Government of Kerala cannot have control over it, except to accept the limited allocation made by the Government of India. The petitioner has no challenge against the fuel allocation by the Government of Kerala. Naturally, all the IPPs cannot be recommended for fuel linkage. A selection is necessary. That involves exclusion of few. The petitioner has a case that it should not have been excluded. If the petitioner is to be included, one among included has to be excluded. But, none of the selected IPPs is made part to the original petition. The petitioner submits that he does not seek exclusion of any one included. The limited liquid fuel allocation will not allow it. On that reason also interference is impossible.

IF Government of Kerala succeeds in getting more allocation of liquid fuel, necessarily, the petitioner shall also be considered. "

( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed an appeal (Writ Appeal No. 1899 of 1997) before the Division Bench of the High Court which has been allowed by the impugned judgment dated 11/12/1997. The learned Judges on the Division Bench have held that selection was not valid inasmuch as in making the selection the State Government and the Kerala State Electricity Board had not taken into account proper and relevant factors and the exclusion of respondent No. 1 was not correct. As regards objection regarding non-joinder of the other applicants who had been selected the learned Judges have said :-

"the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner has not impleaded other persons who have been selected for fuel linkage. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not against the grant of fuel linkage to any other person. His attack is against the selection policy adopted by the Government. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1974 SC 1755 (General Manager, South Central Rly. , Secundrabad v. AVR Sidhanti) and AIR 1983 SC 769 (A. Janardhana v. Union of India ). In these cases, the Supreme Court has held that where a policy or a method of selection is challenged, it is not necessary to implead individual parties. "

( 5 ) THE writ appeal was, therefore, allowed and the State Government was