Writ appeals disposed with liberty to seek review or recall; merits left open.

The connected intra-court writ appeals arose from the common judgment dated 28 July 2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2904/2025 and connected writ petitions.

The appellants contended that they were directly affected by the relief granted in the writ proceedings but had not been impleaded as parties.

A co-ordinate Division Bench had previously dealt with appeals arising from the same common judgment in WA No. 762/2026 and connected matters, permitting the affected appellants to file appropriate review or recall petitions before the learned Single Judge.

In the present batch, the parties requested that the appeals be disposed of on the same terms; it was also submitted that review petitions had already been filed in some matters and were pending before the Single Judge.

Whether the present writ appeals should be disposed of in terms of the co-ordinate Bench’s judgment dated 19 August 2026 in WA No. 762/2026 and connected appeals, with liberty to the appellants to seek review or recall of the impugned judgment.

Whether the Division Bench should express any opinion on the merits of the controversy decided in the writ petitions at the appellate stage.

The Court applied the procedural principle that an affected person who was not impleaded in the original writ proceedings may seek appropriate review or recall of the judgment before the learned Single Judge, particularly where the judgment directly affects that person’s rights.

The Court followed the binding effect of the co-ordinate Bench’s decision in WA No. 762/2026 and connected matters, which directed that such review or recall petitions be considered in accordance with law after granting an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.

No specific statutory provision or substantive precedent was relied upon in the present order; the Court expressly left all questions on the merits open.

Since all the appeals arose from the same common judgment and raised the same procedural concern regarding non-impleadment of persons allegedly affected by the relief granted, the Division Bench considered it appropriate to maintain consistency with the earlier co-ordinate Bench decision.

Rather than examining the merits of the underlying writ petitions, the Court adopted the earlier course of permitting the appellants to approach the learned Single Judge through review or recall petitions.

The Single Judge was directed to decide those petitions in accordance with law after hearing all concerned parties, thereby preserving the appellants’ opportunity to address the alleged prejudice caused by their non-impleadment.

The appellants were granted liberty to file appropriate review or recall petitions before the learned Single Judge against the common judgment dated 28 July 2026.

The Single Judge was required to consider such petitions after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.

The Division Bench expressed no opinion on the merits of the underlying controversy, and all issues on merits were left open.