Natural justice limits ex parte interim orders: affected non-parties may challenge prejudice and seek impleadment before hearing.

A person directly prejudiced by an ex parte interim order, though not impleaded in the writ petition, may be treated as an aggrieved party with locus to seek permission to appeal. Where the order operated against affected persons whose applications were pending and they were not heard before restraint was imposed, the order was held to offend natural justice. The interim order was therefore quashed insofar as it prejudiced the appellant, and the appellant was directed to be impleaded as a respondent. The merits of the writ petition were left open for consideration by the single judge.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a person adversely affected by an ex parte interim order, though not impleaded in the writ petition, has locus to maintain an intra-court appeal and seek permission to appeal. (ii) Whether the ex parte interim order, passed without hearing such affected persons, required to be quashed to the extent it prejudiced the appellant and the appellant directed to be impleaded in the writ petition.

Issue (i): Whether a person adversely affected by an ex parte interim order, though not impleaded in the writ petition, has locus to maintain an intra-court appeal and seek permission to appeal.

Analysis: The affected persons had been identified in the material placed before the single Judge, and the impugned interim order operated directly against persons whose applications for registration were pending. The appeal was directed against an ex parte interim order, and the appellant was not heard before the order was passed. In those circumstances, the appellant was treated as an aggrieved person with the right to challenge the order.

Conclusion: The appellant had locus to seek permission to appeal and to challenge the ex parte interim order.

Issue (ii): Whether the ex parte interim order, passed without hearing such affected persons, required to be quashed to the extent it prejudiced the appellant and the appellant directed to be impleaded in the writ petition.

Analysis: The interim restraint order affected parties whose applications for registration were pending in response to the public notice, yet they were not impleaded as respondents. Since the order was passed without affording them an opportunity of hearing, it was held to offend the principles of natural justice. The merits of the writ petition were left open for consideration by the single Judge.

Conclusion: The interim order was quashed insofar as it affected the appellant, and the appellant was directed to be impleaded as a respondent in the writ petition.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of protecting the appellant from the ex parte interim restraint and securing impleadment and hearing before the single Judge, while leaving the merits of the writ petition open.

Ratio Decidendi: An ex parte interim order that directly prejudices an affected person who was not impleaded and not heard can be interfered with on the ground of violation of natural justice, and such person may be permitted to join and challenge the order as an aggrieved party.

---