The main legal point established in the judgment is that an aggrieved person has the right to challenge an interim order passed without affording an opportunity of hearing, and should be impleaded as a party in the proceedings.

ORDER :

1. Heard on I.A. No.1 of 2019, an application seeking permission to file the appeal.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is the person aggrieved by the ad-interim order dated 24.10.2019 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos.114748-114750 of 2019 and therefore, the appellant ought to have been impleaded. However, the learned single Judge, in the absences of the appellant and, without realising the fact that the writ petition suffers from the vice of non-joinder of necessary parties, has passed the interim order restraining the respondents from registering the sales contract for import of Poppy seeds from China pursuant to the public notice dated 04.10.2019. It is submitted that the respondent No.1 himself has annexed the list of persons whose applications for registration were pending pursuant to the impugned advertisement and therefore, in all fairness, the respondent No.1 should have impleaded the aforesaid persons as the interim order operates to the prejudice of the appellant.

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that Section 4 of the Karnataka High court, 1961 enables a person who is aggrieved by an order passed by the learned single Judge to file an appeal and since the appellant is a person aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge, the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal.

3. Resisting the aforesaid submission made by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has invited the attention of this Court to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Jestmal Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, and has submitted that a person, who is not a party to a writ petition, cannot file an appeal against the order passed in the writ petition and therefore, the appellant has no locus to challenge the ad interim order passed by the learned single Judge.

4. By way of rebuttal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the aforesaid decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has no application to the fact situation of the case.

5. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. Admittedly, from perusal of the application filed by the respondent No.1 before the learned single Judge and in particular Annexure-V annexed with it, it is evident that it contains the list of the persons whose applications for registration in response to the public notice dated 04.10.2019 are pending consideration. Thus, the respondent No.1 was fully aware with regard to the persons who are likely to be affected by the impugned order. By the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge, the process of registering sales contract for import of Poppy sees from China in response to the public notice has been stayed. Thus, the appellant has been adversely affect by the impugned order. The appellant has not been impleaded as a party in the writ petition and the impugned order has been passed without affording an opportunity of being heard to him.

6. Since the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant, therefore, in our considered opinion, the appellant being aggrieved person has right to challenge the impugned order in this appeal. It is pertinent to mention here that in the case of Jestmal (supra), challenge was made to Government Order and the writ petition was disposed of. Thereafter, the persons who were not parties to the case file an appeal against the order passed in the writ petition on the ground that the disposal of the site in question by the government in favour of respondent No.3 was injurious to public interest and as citizens they are entitled to question the legality of the Government order. In the aforesaid context, a Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case has observed that the appellants in that appeal had no locus to file an appeal against the judgment in questio