Necessary parties - Without impleading the State Government, the rule making authority, a declaration of invalidation about the rule cannot be entertained. In the absence of the proper party, the Court cannot have effective assistance to have the background in which the rule was framed, and the information relevant for the adjudication of the question, including that relating to the object of the section on the one hand and the rule on the other hand. [Kunhikrishnan v. Secretary, Nadappuram Service Co-op. Bank Ltd., Case No.70, 1986 KLT 43, Sukumaran (J)]
Declaration of invalidity of Rule - State Government should be made party to petition. [Kunhikrishnan v. Secretary, N.S.C. Bank Ltd., 1987 (1) KLT 201 = 1986 KLJ 568., Sukumaran (J)]
There is one set of directions issued in the affirmed in the writ Appeal directing the Food Corporation of India to assign notional dates of promotion to the appellants as and when vacancies in the category of Assistants Grade II arose after they stood transferred to the south zone. The said decision having been implemented and the learned single Judge has issued a direction quashing those orders which were made in obedience to the directions issued by this court to the Corporation and issued a further direction to the Corporation to examine the matter afresh after due notice to all the parties. Where there are two conflicting directions to the Food Corporation of India to do certain things and another direction issued by the learned single Judge commanding the Corporation to do something at variance with what has been directed by this Court in the earlier case it cannot satisfactorily comply with the conflicting directions issued by this Court in two sets of cases. In a situation like this, if a particular person is a necessary party and a decision has been rendered without impleading the necessary party, the proper course to be adopted is not to seek contrary directions at the hands of this court under Article 226 but to make an appropriate petition to reopen the earlier judgment on the ground that he was a necessary party and that the adverse decision rendered affects him and to get himself impleaded as party and that the adverse decision rendered affects him and to get himself impleaded as party and get the judgment rendered behind his back reviewed. That is the procedure which has to be followed. [Ramachandran vs. Food Corporation of India, 1989 (2) KLT 112 (DB), Malimath (CJ) & Bhaskaran Nambiar (J)]