Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : K.S. Bharathan, Alphin Antony, Aadithyan S. Mannali, Radhikakrishna, Jishnu P.P.
For the Respondents: V. Harish, Kannan, K.N. Abhilash, T. Naveen, Rajan Vishnuraj, Ranjith Thampan, Philip J. Vettickattu, George Poonthottam, M.P. Sreekrishnan

Key Points: - The judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside because the Single Judge failed to decide the question of whether the case was outside the roster and without a specific order or allocation before proceeding on the merits. (!) - An order passed in a matter outside the roster or not specifically assigned is without jurisdiction and a nullity. (!) (!) - A person generally has no locus standi to file a writ petition if they are not personally affected, unless it is a public interest litigation. (!) - The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is based on the existence of a right in favor of the person invoking the jurisdiction. (!) - A bench must decide the issue of whether a case is outside the roster before considering the case on its merits. (!) - The Chief Justice of the High Court has the power to set the roster, which is final and binding on all judges. (!)

How to determine whether a writ petition is a private interest litigation or a public interest litigation for roster allocation purposes?

What is the legal effect of an order passed in a case outside the roster or without specific order of allocation?

What are the rights of a person invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?