A writ petition is not maintainable if necessary parties, whose rights are directly affected by the relief sought, are not impleaded. Failure to implead such parties, coupled with the suppression of material facts, is fatal to the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Court made the following ORAL ORDER:

Heard Sri Sk. Iliyaz, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri S. Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporations.

2. Writ Petitioner has challenged the notice issued by the Respondent Corporation dated 07.02.2026 (Ex.P.1). Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would also submit that Respondent No.2 has issued Trade Licence dated 29.01.2026 (Ex.P.5) in favour of the Writ Petitioner and the Writ Petitioner has been carrying on business in the present premises for the last five years.

3. At the outset, Sri S. Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporations has raised a preliminary objection that the Writ Petition is not maintainable in the present form, inasmuch as the impugned notices are issued to one Sri I. Vijaya Kumar and Sri M. Thirupathaiah, whereas the present Writ Petitioner has nothing to do with the demand raised by the Respondents against Sri I. Vijaya Kumar and Sri M. Thirupathaiah. He would also contend that the Respondent No.2 has granted lease of Shops in favour of Sri I. Vijaya Kumar and Sri M. Thirupathaiah but not the Writ Petitioner and that the Respondent Corporation has raised a claim of Rs.7,30,430/- against both the lessees but not the Writ Petitioner. He would also submit that the Writ Petitioner has been illegally conducting the business from Shop No.2 (leased to Sri I. Vijaya Kumar) and Shop No.8 (leased to Sri M. Thirupathaiah).

4. Sri S. Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporations would submit that Sri I. Vijaya Kumar and Sri M. Thirupathaiah have illegally sub leased the Shop Nos.2 & 8 to the Writ Petitioner and that the Writ Petitioner has no right to file the present Writ Petition.

5. Having considered these aspects, prima-facie, it appears that the Writ Petitioner does not have any right to file the present Writ Petition against the Official Respondent No.2, inasmuch as the Shop Nos.2 & 8 have been leased in favour of Sri I.Vijaya Kumar and Sri M. Thirupathaiah respectively.

6. Admittedly, the Shop Nos.2 & 8 were leased-out by the Respondent Corporation to Sri I. Vijaya Kumar and Sri M. Thirupathaiah respectively and the Writ Petitioner has established the Glass and Photo frame works in both the Shops jointly, probably under unauthorized and illegal sub-lease. In any case, the impugned notices itself would indicate that they were issued to Sri I. Vijaya Kumar and Sri M. Thirupathaiah. Therefore, this Court opines that the lessees namely Sri I. Vijaya Kumar and Sri M. Thirupathaiah would be the necessary parties, who cannot be left-out in the present Writ Petition. Despite the fact that the lessees are invariably the necessary parties, the Writ Petitioner has not chosen to array them in the Cause Title. Therefore, this Writ Petition suffers from the vice of non-joinder of necessary parties. This apart, the projection of Trade Licence in favour of the Writ Petitioner is of no avail for seeking the present relief. Although the Writ Petitioner had not placed any material on record to show whether the Writ Petitioner had been paying any rents to the original lessees or not, nevertheless, it can be safely assumed that the Writ Petitioner had been paying the rents/lease amounts to the original lessees and that the said original lessees must have been enjoying such rental proceeds without paying even the minimum lease amount to the Corporation.

Non-joinder of Necessary Parties:

7. It is also settled law that non-joinder of necessary parties eve