The Patna High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the Bihar Civil Procedure (Mediation) (Amendment) Rule, 2019, not on substantive grounds, but for the petitioner’s persistent failure to implead 83 individuals whose appointments as mediators would be directly affected by any ruling. The judgment reaffirms the foundational principle that no judicial order can be passed against persons not given an opportunity to be heard.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, 24 practicing advocates and mediators, filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the Bihar Civil Procedure (Mediation) (Amendment) Rule, 2019, alleging it was enacted without legislative competence and contravened the Supreme Court’s mediation framework. They sought declarations that the Rule is ultra vires, directions for payment of arrears of mediation fees, restructuring of the Patna High Court Mediation Committee, creation of a dedicated financial head for the Mediation Centre, and administrative reforms.
Key Facts
- The Patna High Court Mediation Centre maintains a panel of empaneled mediators.
- On 15.09.2023, the Mediation Act, 2023 came into force, triggering a review of existing mediators.
- On 11.10.2023, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Patna High Court approved, based on recommendations of the Mediation Committee:
- Renewal of tenure for 20 existing mediators for three years (via Memo No. 1530-53)
- Empanelment of 40 newly trained advocates as mediators
- The petitioners, who were among 36 mediators removed from the panel, challenged these approvals.
- The petitioners did not seek to challenge the removal of their own names but sought to invalidate the entire process, including the empanelment of the 40 new mediators.
- The petitioners filed an application on 13.01.2024 seeking to implead the 40 newly appointed mediators and 43 others (including the 20 renewed mediators), totaling 83 individuals.
Procedural History
- 06.12.2023: First hearing; Advocate General raised objection that newly appointed mediators were not impleaded.
- 13.01.2024: Petitioners filed application to implead 83 newly appointed/renewed mediators.
- 23.01.2024: Court allowed amendment and directed service of notices via registered post with A.D. and ordinary process; petitioners given two weeks to file requisites.
- 27.02.2024: Court dismissed I.A. No. 4 of 2024 seeking permission for dasti summons; reiterated that failure to serve notices would result in dismissal against the newly added respondents.
- 24.02.2026: Petitioners admitted they had not filed requisites for service of notices on the 83 respondents.
- 13.03.2026: Judgment delivered dismissing the writ petition.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners: Argued that the writ petition challenged the Rule, 2019, and not the individual appointments. Claimed no relief was sought against the 83 newly added respondents, and therefore their non-joinder should not derail the case. Sought to proceed against the State and High Court authorities only.
For the Respondents (State and High Court): Contended that the 83 individuals were indispensable parties because any declaration invalidating the Rule or the 11.10.2023 approvals would directly nullify their appointments, depriving them of livelihood without hearing. Highlighted that the petitioners had deliberately avoided service to evade procedural obligations.
Relief Sought
- Declaration that the Bihar Civil Procedure (Mediation) (Amendment) Rule, 2019 is ultra vires.
- Direction to pay arrears of mediation fees with interest.
- Restructuring of the Mediation Committee and creation of a dedicated financial head.
- Quashing of Memo No. 1530-53 dated 11.10.2023 and the Office Order approving empanelment of 40 advocates.
The Legal Issue
Can a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution be adjudicated on merit when the persons who will be vitally affected by the judgment - including those whose appointments are under challenge - have not been made parties to the litigation, despite repeated court orders to implead them?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The petitioners argued that the challenge was directed solely at the Rule, 2019, and not at the individual appointments. They claimed that since no specific relief was sought against the 83 newly appointed mediators, their non-joinder was not fatal. They further contended that serving notices on 83 individuals would impose an unreasonable financial burden and that the State and High Court authorities were sufficient respondents to represent the administrative action.
For the Respondent/State
The State and High Court respondents argued that the 83 individuals were not mere bystanders but directly affected parties whose rights to practice as mediators, earn livelihood, and hold appointments were at stake. Citing Ranjan Kumar v. State of Bihar and Prabodh Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, they emphasized that natural justice requires notice and hearing to all persons whose rights are likely to be adversely affected. The failure to serve notices, despite court orders, amounted to a deliberate evasion of procedural obligations and rendered the petition defective.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous analysis of the doctrine of natural justice and the settled jurisprudence on non-joinder of necessary parties. It emphasized that the principle is not a technicality but a constitutional imperative under Article 14 and Article 21.
"No adverse order can be passed against a person, who was not made party to the litigation."
The Court examined the judgment in Prabodh Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1984) 4 SCC 251, particularly paragraph 28, which holds that a High Court must not decide a writ petition under Article 226 without the persons who would be vitally affected being before it as respondents - either individually or in representative capacity.
The Court noted that the petitioners’ prayer to quash Memo No. 1530-53 and the Office Order dated 11.10.2023 directly targeted the appointments of the 20 renewed and 40 newly empaneled mediators. Any declaration invalidating these approvals would automatically terminate their status as mediators, depriving them of their right to practice and earn income.
The Court rejected the petitioners’ argument that they sought no relief against these individuals. It held that the effect of the relief sought - invalidation of the Rule and the approvals - would inevitably and directly impact the 83 individuals, making them indispensable parties.
"Any order passed in the present writ petition would certainly vitally affect them."
The Court further observed that the petitioners had been given multiple opportunities - on 06.12.2023, 23.01.2024, and 27.02.2024 - to comply with the procedural mandate. Their persistent failure to file requisites for service of notices, even after being explicitly warned that the petition would be dismissed against the newly added respondents, constituted a deliberate disregard of court orders.
The Court concluded that allowing the petition to proceed without the 83 parties would violate the cardinal rule of audi alteram partem and set a dangerous precedent permitting litigants to circumvent procedural obligations by selectively ignoring parties whose rights are inconvenient to challenge.
The Verdict
The writ petition stands dismissed. The Court held that the failure to implead and serve notices upon the 83 newly appointed and renewed mediators - despite repeated directions - renders the petition legally unsustainable. No relief can be granted against the State or High Court authorities when the persons directly affected by the relief sought remain unheard. The dismissal is final and operates against all respondents.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Non-Joinder of Indispensable Parties Is Fatal
- Practitioners must identify all persons whose rights will be directly affected by the relief sought, even if they are not the primary target of litigation.
- A petition cannot proceed on merit if indispensable parties are omitted, regardless of whether the petitioner claims to seek no relief against them.
Court Orders on Service Must Be Strictly Complied With
- Failure to comply with court directions to serve notices - even on large groups - will result in dismissal, not merely procedural delay.
- Requests for alternative service (e.g., dasti summons) are not substitutes for compliance; courts will not permit evasion of due process.
Administrative Appointments Are Not Immune from Judicial Scrutiny - But Require Due Process
- Judicial review of administrative appointments is permissible, but only if all affected individuals are given notice and opportunity to be heard.
- Courts will not entertain challenges to appointment lists unless the entire chain of affected persons is properly impleaded.
