Writ petitions must be dismissed for non-joinder of parties whose rights are vitally affected by the judgment.

The petitioners, practicing advocates and trained mediators at the Patna High Court, challenged the validity of the Bihar Civil Procedure (Mediation) (Amendment) Rule, 2019, alleging it was enacted without legislative jurisdiction

They sought reliefs including the payment of fee arrears, fee enhancement, and the quashing of office orders dated 11.10.2023, which renewed the tenure of 20 existing mediators and empanelled 40 new mediators under the 2019 Rules

During proceedings, the State argued that the newly appointed mediators must be impleaded as their rights would be affected

The petitioners impleaded respondents 25 to 83 but initially claimed no relief against them to avoid the responsibility of serving notice

Although the court ordered notice to be served via ordinary and registered post, the petitioners failed to file the necessary requisites and sought to serve via Dasti summons to save costs, which the court refused

Ultimately, the petitioners failed to comply with the court's direction to serve the newly added respondents

1. Whether the High Court can decide a writ petition under Article 226 in the absence of necessary parties who would be vitally affected by the judgment.

2. Whether the failure to serve notice upon newly impleaded respondents, whose appointments were under challenge, renders the writ petition liable for dismissal.

The court applied the doctrine of "non-joinder of necessary parties" and the principles of natural justice.

It relied on Ranjan Kumar & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2014) 16 SCC 187, which held that a writ petition is defective if appointees whose selection is challenged are not impleaded

It further followed the precedent in Prabodh Verma and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (1984) 4 SCC 251, which established that a High Court should not hear a writ petition without the presence of respondents whose interests are vitally concerned, or at least a representative capacity of such persons if their number is large

The court observed that since the petitioners were challenging the very rules and recommendations under which respondents 25 to 83 were empanelled or renewed as mediators, any adverse judgment would directly imperil their appointments

The court noted that the petitioners had knowingly failed to deposit the requisites for service of notice, despite repeated orders

The court rejected the petitioners' contention that the matter could still be decided against the State (respondents 1 to 24) alone, reasoning that the validity of the 2019 Rules could not be adjudicated without hearing the parties whose livelihoods/positions depended on those rules

The defiance of court orders regarding service of notice was found to be a fatal procedural defect

The court held that no adverse order can be passed against persons not properly brought before the litigation when their rights are at stake

Due to the non-compliance with directions for service of notice upon necessary respondents (25 to 83), the High Court dismissed the writ petition in its entirety