A person cannot be added as a respondent in a writ petition challenging the withholding of release of imported goods by the Customs Authorities unless the person has a direct and legal interest in the questions involved in the petition.

C. Mookerjee, J.

The appellant, Sri Mukund Shah has filed this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 7th February, 1979 passed by our learned brother R.N. Pyne J. rejecting his application for adding him as a respondent in Civil Rule No. 57(W) of 1979 obtained by M/s. Golden Polyester Industries Pvt. Ltd., the respondent No.1. herein. The appellant's application for interim orders by, consent of parties has been heard along with this appeal. We also direct, with consent of parties, that the filing of the paper-books be dispensed with and service of notices upon the respondents be waived. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 continue to be represented by the learned advocates who had appeared for them in the trial court.

2. The learned Single Judge in his order dated 7th February, 1979 did not record his reasons for rejecting the application of the present appellant for adding him as a respondent in the aforesaid Rule. There is some force in the submission of Mr. H. Jagtiani learned advocate for the appellant, that the learned Single Judge ought to have recorded his reasons, however, brief they may be, for not entertaining the appellant's said prayer for addition of parties. We propose to state the reasons why, in our, view, the appellant is not entitled to be joined as a respondent in the said Civil Rule-.

3. The appellant in his application for addition of party filed in Civil Rule No. 57(W) of 1979 claimed that he is registered as a small scale industrial unit in Maharashtra. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of Metallised Polyester Film and Metallic Yarn from Metallised Polyester Film. The product of the applicant is used mainly in the textile industries, including the hand-loom textile industries. He has further alleged in his said application that the respondent No.1 herein M/s. Golden Industries Pvt. Ltd. had grossly under-valued the price of Metallised Polyester Film in the bill of entries made out and submitted on behalf of the importer. Therefore, M/s. Golden Polyester Industries Pvt. Ltd. would have a tremendous advantage over others including the appellant who paid the same rate of duty on invoiced values which were more than three times than those declared by M/s. Golden Polyester Industries Pvt. Ltd. Further, according to the appellant, due to the "illegal strategy" adopted by M/s. Golden Polyester Industries Pvt. Ltd., the appellant and other importers would be out of market by goods whose invoiced value had been wrongly shown. The appellant has further claimed that it would be impossible for honest importers to carry on their normal trade when the goods at the above rate invade the market The indigenous manufacturers of polyester film and metaliser would be also harmed. Under these circumstances, the appellant submitted that his right and interest in respect of his trade would be vitally affected by the aforesaid Civil Rule and as such he may be added as a party respondent therein.

4. Mr. Jagtiani has submitted that his client in two-fold capacity may urge that he should be added as a respondent in the aforesaid Civil Rule. In the first place his client as a public spirited citizen with special knowledge about the real value of the goods imported by the respondent No.1 herein should be given opportunity of making his submission. Secondly, the appellant is likely to be adversely affected by the decision in the Civil Rule and if the goods are released, his client may face unfair competition. Mr. Jagtiani submitted before us that it is not necessary for his client to establish that he had any property interest in the goods whose release had been withheld by the Customs Authorities pending a adjudication.

5. The Supreme Court in Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum, AIR 1958 SC 886. with reference to the question of addition of parties had inter-alia observed that in a suit relating to the property, in order that a person may be added, he should have a direct interest as distingu