1. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and having perused the material placed on record, we are not persuaded to entertain this intra-Court appeal.

2. Shorn of un-necessary details, suffice it to notice for the present purpose that in a pending writ petition in this Court, being Writ Petition No.44789/2017, the appellants moved an application seeking their impleadment for being the complainants on whose representations and complaints the order impugned in the writ petition was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District. The learned Single Judge declined to accept the prayer of the applicants for impleadment with a short order that reads in its entirety as under:-

“Heard on I.A.No.2/17.

I.A.No.2/17 filed by the impleading applicants, who are complainants against the liquor shop, which was licensed by the Respondent -Department of Excise, at first instance and was later on closed under the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District on the basis of the Survey Report of Tahsildar and Assistant Commissioner.

Mrs. Niloufer Akbar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents wants to file statement of objections to the present petition.

The same may be filed within three weeks from today. However, this Court does not consider it necessary or appropriate to implead the applicants, who are complainants in the matter and it is for the Government to defend its own order under challenge in this petition. I.A.No.2/17 is accordingly rejected.

Interim order granted earlier is continued until further orders. Put up after three weeks.”

3. Learned Counsel for the appellants has strenuously argued that the location of the liquor vending shop in question is in contravention of the applicable rules and is causing serious prejudice to the people of the locality. This apart, the liquor vending shop had been established on a Government land within 100 meters radius of the location of Schools, Colleges, SC/ST Colonies and Temples. Learned Counsel would submit that though the decision has been taken by the Excise Authorities on the complaints and representations made by the appellants, but they are deprived of the benefits of such orders for the reason of the Interim Order operating in the said writ petition. Learned Counsel would further argue that the applicants are the persons directly affected by the existence of liquor vending shop at the location in question and they are in a position to effectively assist the Court in arriving at a just and proper conclusion of the matter. Thus, according to the learned Counsel, appellants ought to have been allowed to join as parties in the writ petition and at any rate, they ought to have been allowed to intervene so as to place on the relevant facts and submissions before the Court.

4. Learned Counsel has referred to and relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar and another: AIR 1963 SC 786 and in the case of State of Assam v. Union of India and Others: (2010) 10 SCC 408.

5. In the case of Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has summarised the position of law in relation to the impleadment of parties in the following:-

“(12) To summarise in a writ of certiorari not only the tribunal or authority whose order is sought to be quashed but also parties in whose favour the said order is issued are necessary parties. But it is in the discretion of the court to add or implead proper parties for completely settling all the questions that may be involved in the controversy either suo motu or on the application of a party to the writ or an application filed at the instance of such proper party.

(13) In the present case Phudan Manjhi and Bhagwan Rajak were parties before the Commissioner as well as before the Board of Revenue. They succeeded in the said proceedings and the orders of the said tribunal were in their favou