Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.38 seconds)
Shahaji Sahebrao Desai And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 16 June, 2017 cites

Prabodh Verma And Others, Etc vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others. Etc on 27 July, 1984

" 34. It was also contended on behalf of the Interveners that none of the persons from those, who are granted membership on 30-6-1988, are made parties to the petition and in the absence of those persons, no relief can be granted in these petitions. It is true that in both the petitions, none of those affected persons are made parties, but an application was made for intervention on behalf of some of such persons in Writ Petition No. 417 of 1989. That application was granted and intervention by some of the persons was allowed. Not only that, but the arguments advanced on behalf of them were heard by us at the time of hearing of both these writ petitions. Similar question was considered by the Supreme Court in (Prabodh Verms and others V. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others) 4, AIR 1985 SC 167 and it was held on the question of necessary parties that if the persons to be vitally affected, large in number, are not made respondents, the High Court should not proceed with writ petition without insisting on such persons or some of them in representative capacity being made respondents. In view of this ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, in this case, even though the petitioners had failed to make any one of the 3,387 persons as respondents, the fact that some of such of the persons had intervened in the proceedings and were heard cannot be ignored, and as the entire hearing of both the petitions, including the claim of the Interveners, is heard together the basic requirement of notice and opportunity stands satisfied in the present case. "
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 444 - D P Madon - Full Document
1