Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Application for inclusion as party respondent in PIL (Suo Moto) No.10/2018 is generally maintainable when parties seek to be impleaded in ongoing PIL proceedings. Courts have permitted such applications, noting that pendency does not affect individual rights ["KESHAB BARMAN AND 153 ORS vs IN RE THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 89 ORS - Gauhati"] ["KESHAB BARMAN AND 153 ORS vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS - Gauhati"] ["ARABINDA BAISHYA AND 33 ORS vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS - Gauhati"].
Courts have clarified that suo moto actions and applications for impleading parties are permissible, especially when issues raised are relevant to the PIL. For example, courts have taken suo moto cognizance and allowed parties to be added as respondents to ensure broader representation and effective adjudication ["BAPU SHANKAR DIKHE AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS - Bombay"] ["BAPU SHANKAR DIKHE AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS - Bombay"].
The maintainability of PILs themselves depends on whether parties have proper locus standi and whether the proceedings are initiated correctly. Some cases have dismissed PILs or applications on grounds of lack of locus standi or because the matter was already pending before the court or other judicial forums ["Janata Daletc. etc. VS H. S. Chowdhary - Crimes"] ["BAPU SHANKAR DIKHE AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS - Bombay"].
Courts have emphasized that PILs are not a panacea and should not be abused. Proper parameters and criteria are necessary for their maintainability, and they should serve public interest without overreach ["V. K. DEWAN VS DELHI JAL BOARD - Delhi"].
In cases where allegations involve quasi-judicial proceedings or administrative actions, courts have held that remedy mechanisms within the respective schemes or resolutions are appropriate, and PILs or suo moto actions are subject to these procedural constraints ["BAPU SHANKAR DIKHE AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS - Bombay"] ["BAPU SHANKAR DIKHE AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS - Bombay"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The application to be included as a party in a suo moto PIL is generally maintainable if the applicant demonstrates relevance and proper procedural grounds. Courts have shown flexibility in allowing impleadment to ensure comprehensive adjudication, provided the PIL is not misused and the applicant has standing. However, PILs must adhere to legal parameters, and their maintainability hinges on proper locus standi, relevance, and procedural correctness. Overall, the courts recognize the importance of PILs in safeguarding public interest but remain cautious against abuse through strict procedural scrutiny ["KESHAB BARMAN AND 153 ORS vs IN RE THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 89 ORS - Gauhati"] ["BAPU SHANKAR DIKHE AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS - Bombay"].
Public Interest Litigations (PILs), especially those initiated suo moto by courts, play a crucial role in upholding public rights in India. But what if you're a third party with a stake in the matter? Can you file an application to be included as a party? The question often arises: application to be included party in so Moto PIL is maintainable. This blog post breaks down the legal landscape, drawing from judicial precedents and principles to provide clarity.
While courts generally allow such applications under specific conditions, success depends on demonstrating sufficient interest. This is not legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your case. Let's explore the nuances.
Suo moto PILs are initiated by courts on their own motion to address public interest issues, without a formal petitioner. Adding parties—known as impleadment—ensures comprehensive adjudication. Courts derive this power from Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), allowing addition of necessary or proper parties either suo moto or on application Tarun Keshrichand Shah VS Kishore Engineering Co. - 2022 0 Supreme(Bom) 264.
Key Principle: Applications are generally maintainable if the applicant shows a sufficient interest or fits recognized categories for intervention Tarun Keshrichand Shah VS Kishore Engineering Co. - 2022 0 Supreme(Bom) 264. Courts have exercised suo moto jurisdiction to include third parties when their presence is relevant for effective adjudication Tarun Keshrichand Shah VS Kishore Engineering Co. - 2022 0 Supreme(Bom) 264.
Indian courts hold inherent powers to add parties in PILs. For instance, Courts possess inherent powers to suo moto include third parties in PILs when their interest is relevant or necessary for the just disposal of the matter Tarun Keshrichand Shah VS Kishore Engineering Co. - 2022 0 Supreme(Bom) 264. This flexibility is evident in cases like PIL (Suo Moto) 05/2021, where courts directed actions suo moto for public interest Aka Kalung S/o Shri Kalung Ganku VS State Of AP - 2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 604.
A settled principle reinforces this: It is a settled principle of Law that impleading of necessary party can be added at any stage even suo moto or on the application of wither party or even on the application of a person which is not a party to the case if it is necessary party to decide the controversy in dispute Tiwari Global Infrastructure Ltd. VS Sanjay Vasudeva. This applies across proceedings, including consumer cases under the Consumer Protection Act Tiwari Global Infrastructure Ltd. VS Sanjay Vasudeva.
In another context, courts have impleaded parties in suo moto PILs as respondents when relevant, such as adding an applicant as respondent No. 6 SHIMREIYO SHIMRAY vs STATE OF MANIPUR.
The cornerstone of maintainability lies in classifying the applicant:
The concept of necessary party involves someone whose presence is essential for a complete adjudication, whereas proper party is someone whose presence facilitates effective disposal Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. VS Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. - 2010 6 Supreme 78. Courts exercise discretion under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC, adding parties if facts warrant Tarun Keshrichand Shah VS Kishore Engineering Co. - 2022 0 Supreme(Bom) 264.
For example, in PILs affecting public authorities or third parties, courts have included them suo moto to ensure justice Tarun Keshrichand Shah VS Kishore Engineering Co. - 2022 0 Supreme(Bom) 264.
In practice, intervention can occur suo moto or via application. The applicant must prove legal interest or necessity:
Supporting cases show:- Courts permitting impleadment in suo moto matters when landowners or affected parties apply COURT OF ITS OWN MOTION vs STATE OF J AND K AND ORS.- Recognition that the High Court has the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings which are an abuse of the process of the Court in parallel PIL contexts Suo Moto VS State - 2009 Supreme(Raj) 2358.
However, not all applications succeed. If the applicant is a mere meddler without genuine interest, courts refuse USS Alliance VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 905. In service matters, PILs (including interventions) are often not maintainable Court on its own motion VS State of J&K - 2019 Supreme(J&K) 258, as PIL would not lie in service matters Court on its own motion VS State of J&K - 2019 Supreme(J&K) 258.
Broad powers are tempered by judicial discretion, natural justice, and fairnessUNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS . - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 685. Key limitations include:
In revisional jurisdictions, like co-operative societies, powers are exercisable suo moto or on application, but only against specific orders Jasbir Singh VS Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division - 2011 Supreme(P&H) 1362, Deepak Kumar Kalia VS Punjab State Handloom Weavers Apex Coop. Soc. - 2006 Supreme(P&H) 2860.
To maximize chances:
Courts should balance intervention with fairness UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS . - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 685.
In summary, while generally maintainable, success in applications to be included as a party in suo moto PILs hinges on meeting strict criteria of interest and necessity. Judicial precedents affirm courts' flexibility Tarun Keshrichand Shah VS Kishore Engineering Co. - 2022 0 Supreme(Bom) 264, but discretion ensures fairness UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS . - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 685. For those eyeing intervention, thorough preparation is key. This overview draws from established cases—always seek professional advice tailored to your situation.
References:- Tarun Keshrichand Shah VS Kishore Engineering Co. - 2022 0 Supreme(Bom) 264: Core on suo moto inclusion and criteria.- Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. VS Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. - 2010 6 Supreme 78: Necessary vs. proper parties.- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS . - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 685: Scope and natural justice.- Additional sources: Tiwari Global Infrastructure Ltd. VS Sanjay Vasudeva, SHIMREIYO SHIMRAY vs STATE OF MANIPUR, Suo Moto VS State - 2009 Supreme(Raj) 2358, Court on its own motion VS State of J&K - 2019 Supreme(J&K) 258, NEW SUN EDUCATION SOCIETY (REGD. ), ALIGARH VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2008 Supreme(All) 449.
#SuoMotoPIL, #PILImpleadment, #IndianLaw
By this interlocutory application, the applicants have prayed for impleading them as party respondents in the connected public interest litigation being PIL (Suo Moto) No.10/2018. ... Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits, the applicants are permitted to be arrayed as party respondent Nos.91 to 124 in PIL (Suo Moto) No.10/2018 ... Registry is directed to make necessary amendment in the cause-title o....
will be maintainable. ... has been taken up suo moto by this Court on as respondent No. 6 in this PIL. ... The applicant is filing this application for impleading been taken up for certain issues raised, we do not see how this application
(Civil) No. 3206/2022, impleaded the petitioners as party respondents in PIL (Suo Moto) No. 10/2018. ... (Civil) No. 3206/2022 has impleaded the petitioners as party respondents Nos. 91 to 124 in PIL (Suo Moto) No. 10/2018. ... in PIL (Suo Moto) No. 10/2018. ... , the applicants have prayed for impleading them as party respondents in the connected public interest litigation being PIL (Suo Moto) No....
(Civil) No. 3206/2022, impleaded the petitioners as party respondents in PIL (Suo Moto) No. 10/2018. ... PIL (Suo Moto) No. ... (Civil) No. 3206/2022 has impleaded the petitioners as party respondents Nos. 91 to 124 in PIL (Suo Moto) No. 10/2018. ... , the applicants have prayed for impleading them as party respondents in the connected public interest litigation being PIL (Suo Moto) No. 10/2018. .....
He submits that the learned Minister has not only rejected the application filed by the learned Collector but has suo moto that the petitioners in PIL was not a party even to the quasi judicial by the Government under the provisions of the said scheme or under the said Government Resolution, remedy for aggrieved party ... Writ Petition No.3180 of 2021 is concerned, in our view, the said writ petition is not maintainable in view of there p style
He submits that the learned Minister has not only rejected the application filed by the learned Collector but has suo moto that the petitioners in PIL was not a party even to the quasi judicial by the Government under the provisions of the said scheme or under the said Government Resolution, remedy for aggrieved party ... Writ Petition No.3180 of 2021 is concerned, in our view, the said writ petition is not maintainable in view of there p style
Suo Moto Vs.
On that day, the complainant produced a copy of the preliminary report with three documents which included the photographs which had been filed in the PIL Petition ( D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1826/09, Suo Moto v. State ). ... Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 1826/09, Suo Moto v. State . Thereafter, an application for modification of the order dated 13.2.09 was filed by the Director of Vijay Galani Movies through its proprietor Vijay Galani and a reply to the same was filed by the amicu....
List the Suo Moto PIL No.1/2018 on 05th October, 2023. ... The learned AGP submits that the Suo Moto PIL is not an adversarial litigation. The Government is doing it’s best to ensure that the schools are operated in the most appropriate manner. ... The Civil Applications are filed in Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation No.1/2018. The PIL is with regard to the bad conditions of the schools, being operated by the local authorities like Zilla Parishad, Municipal Council, Municipal Corpor....
This Bench of its own cannot take suo moto action in the matter. ... They were permitted to be impleaded as party respondents vide order An application was moved by some of the land owners through Ramzan Wani moved application to stay the execution of the warrant on It is in view of the above that the the Court has taken suo-moto
It is a settled principle of Law that impleading of necessary party can be added at any stage even suo moto or on the application of wither party or even on the application of a person which is not a party to the case if it is necessary party to decide the controversy in dispute.
Following observations made by the High Court in paragraph 29 clearly indicate that the High Court proceeded to treat the writ petition as PIL, although, it relates to condition of service of Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles...” In light of the above, the PIL has to be held to be not maintainable and it is so held.
They can do so either suo moto or on the application of a party to a reference. A perusal of the above provision shows that the State Government as well as the Registrar have been empowered to examine the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed by a Society. The power is not subject to any provision of the rules or the bye-laws. “.......a perusal of the above provision shows that the State Government as well as the Registrar have been empowered to examine the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed by a Society. The power is not subject to any pr....
We are very much doubtful regarding the bona fides of the petitioners and the petition is merely a ‘benami’ litigation and amounts to abuse of process of the Court. Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable for enforcing the statutory or legal right or when there is a complaint by the petitioner that there is a breach of the statutory duty on the part of the respondents. 3-A. It is settled law that a person who suffers from legal injury only can challenge the act/action/order etc. More so, PIL is not maintainable in service matters
A perusal of the above provision shows that the State Government as well as the Registrar have been empowered to examine the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed by a Society. It is in the nature of supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the Government and the Registrar. They can do so either suo moto or on the application of a party to a reference. The power is not subject to any provision of the rules or the bye-laws.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
