Impleadment and representative notice are required before interim relief can affect beneficiaries of an excise exemption notification.

Interim relief against an excise exemption notification could not be granted effectively without impleading the affected importers, because any restraint or condition on the notification would directly impact their rights. As the affected class was limited and identifiable, representative notice by publication under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC was directed, along with disclosure of importers who had already taken the benefit and periodic intimation of future beneficiaries. Immediate substantive interim relief was declined, but the petitioners were given liberty to renew the request after those procedural steps were completed before the Trial Judge.

---

---

Issues: Whether interim relief could be granted in a challenge to an excise exemption notification without impleading the affected importers, and whether notice and publication under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure should be directed.

Analysis: The affected importers had not been impleaded, yet any interim order restraining or conditioning the benefit of the notification would directly affect their rights. In such circumstances, effective adjudication and meaningful interim relief could not be granted without bringing those persons on record. Since the subject matter affected a limited and identifiable class, the Court permitted representative notice by publication and directed the department to furnish the names of importers who had already availed of the benefit and to communicate future beneficiaries at intervals. The order also preserved the liberty of the petitioners to seek further interim relief after such steps were taken.

Conclusion: The Court declined immediate substantive interim relief against the notification, but granted procedural directions for impleadment and public notice, and allowed the petitioners to renew their request before the Trial Judge thereafter.

---