S. Manikumar, CJ.1. Kerala State Legal Services Authority, represented by its Member Secretary, has filed I.A.1/2019 for getting itself impleaded as additional respondent No. 8 in the Writ Petition, under Rule 120 of the High Court Rules. Along with the application, he has produced Exts.R6(1) to R6(5) reports and Ext. R6(6) series of photographs. This writ petition is, based on the suo motu proceedings initiated upon a letter submitted by the students of St. Fathima High School, Mlamala, Idukki district, addressed to a learned Judge of this Court.2. Inviting attention of this Court to the report of the District Collector, Idukki, addressed to the Member Secretary, Kerala State Legal Services Authority, learned Government Pleader submitted that, after the registration of suo motu public interest writ petition by this Court, Member Secretary, Kerala State Legal Services Authority has called for details from the District Collector, Idukki. Obliging the request made, the District Collector, Idukki has furnished the details and the reports submitted by the Secretary, Idukki District Panchayat, Secretary, Azhutha Block Panchayat and the Secretary, Vandiperiyar Grama Panchayat and other documents.3. According to the learned Government Pleader, after the initiation of a suo motu writ petition, the Kerala State Legal Services Authority has no jurisdiction to call for details and to be impleaded a party respondent as they are not just and necessary parties for effective adjudication. For the aforesaid reasons, prayed for dismissal of the impleading petition.4. It is trite law that the procedure contemplated in the Code of Civil Procedure can be made applicable to the writ proceedings wherever permissible. Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the power of the Court to strike out or add parties. It reads thus:“Court may strike out or add parties-The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the interest litigation. Whenever addition or striking out parties is done, it is necessary for the Court to consider as to whether such persons are required to be added or struck off to adjudicate upon and settle all the issues effectually and completely. In the light of the above provisions, the Kerala State Legal Services Authority may not be required to be impleaded as a party respondent.5. Rule 148 of the High Court Rules deals with Addition of parties – All persons directly affected shall be made parties to the petition. Where such persons are numerous, one or more of them may with the permission of the court on application made of the purpose be impleaded on behalf of or for the benefit of all persons so affected; but notice of the Original Petition shall, on admission, be given to all such persons either by personal service or by public advertisement as the Court in each case may direct.6. Kerala State Legal Services Authority, cannot be said to be adversely affected or aggrieved if any decision to be taken in the suo motu public interest litigation. Whenever addition or striking out parties is done, it is necessary for the Court to consider as to whether such persons are required to be added or struck off to adjudicate upon and settle all the issues effectually and completely. In the light of the above provisions, the Kerala State Legal Services Authority may not be required to be impleaded as a party respondent.7. In some of the suo motu writ petitions, assistance from the Kerala Legal Services Authority has been taken. In the case on hand, some of the issues raised by the students of the Fathima High School, Mlamala, Idukki are, about condition of bridges, provision for basic amenities, high expenses for treatment, poor transportation facilities and other things.8. Rule 152 of the High Court Rules reads thus:“Hearing of third parties—(1). The Court may order notice of the petition to any person not made party thereto.(2) At the time of hearing of the petition for admission or at a later state, any person, who desires to be heard in the matter and appears to the Court to be a proper person to be heard, may be heard, notwithstanding that he is not a party, but subject to such conditions as to costs or otherwise as the court may deem fit to impose.”9. Considering the nature of the works undertaken by the Legal Services Authority on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court periodically and the public awareness created by the Legal Services Authority, we are of the view that the Kerala State Legal Services Authority has to be heard in this matter. It is a
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
n appropriate authority to be heard in the writ petition and it will not be impleaded as a party respondent.10. For the foregoing reasons, the Impleading Application is dismissed. However, we make it clear that the Kerala State Legal Services Authority would be heard in this proceedings. Reports and statements shall be filed by the authority with supporting documents. Respondents to file affidavit and documents.11. Registry is directed to show the name of the learned counsel appearing for the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, in the next hearing.