Court denies amendment, addition of party in writ petition. Costs awarded.

The court dismissed the application for amendment of the main writ petition, ruling that the proposed amendments were unnecessary for determining the real questions in controversy and that the application was mala fide. Additionally, the court rejected the application for the addition of a party, determining that the presence of the workers was not essential for adjudicating the issues in the writ petition. Respondents were awarded costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Amendment of the main writ petition.
2. Territorial jurisdiction of the court.
3. Subsequent events and new causes of action.
4. Alleged mala fide application for amendment.
5. Application for addition of party.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Amendment of the Main Writ Petition:
The petitioners sought to amend the main writ petition (W.P. No. 12492(W) of 1999) to include new grounds and prayers as delineated in the application. The court examined whether the proposed amendments were necessary to determine the real questions in controversy. It was argued that the amendments were needed to address subsequent events, specifically the withdrawal of the floor price for H.R. Coils, which occurred after the filing of the original petition. The court, however, found that the proposed amendments did not have a direct nexus with the original controversy, which was the non-disposal of the second anti-dumping petition by the Designated Authority. The court held that the amendments were not necessary for determining the real questions in controversy and dismissed the application for amendment.

2. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Court:
The petitioners contended that the court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the amendment application based on the averments in the writ petition. They argued that the notification dated 11th December 1998 had an all-India operation, including West Bengal, and that the petitioners' businesses were within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. The court noted that the issue of jurisdiction should be decided at the time of hearing the application on merit and not at the stage of deciding the amendment application. The court emphasized that it did not inherently lack jurisdiction and that the question of territorial jurisdiction was not a bar to considering the amendment application.

3. Subsequent Events and New Causes of Action:
The petitioners argued that subsequent events, such as the withdrawal of the floor price, could be considered by the court during the pendency of the petition to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The court, however, found that the subsequent event of withdrawing the floor price did not have a direct relation to the original controversy. The court held that the proposed amendments sought to introduce a new cause of action unrelated to the original writ petition and that the amendments were not necessary for determining the real questions in controversy. The court dismissed the application for amendment on this ground.

4. Alleged Mala Fide Application for Amendment:
The respondents opposed the amendment application, arguing that it was mala fide and intended to prolong the interim order maintaining the floor price. The court agreed with the respondents, noting that the petitioners had delayed taking out the amendment application and that the subsequent event of withdrawing the floor price had occurred long before the application was made. The court found that the application was an abuse of the process of the court and was taken out to prevent the matter from being disposed of finally. The court dismissed the amendment application with costs.

5. Application for Addition of Party:
The Union of India filed an application for the addition of a party, arguing that the workers of the steel industry were affected by the outcome of the writ petition and should be added as respondents. The court examined whether the presence of the workers was necessary for the effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the writ petition. The court found that the workers were not applicants for the imposition of anti-dumping duty and that their rights were not directly affected by the decision of the Designated Authority. The court dismissed the application for the addition of the party, stating that the workers' presence was not required for the adjudication of the issues in the writ petition.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the application for amendment of the main writ petition, finding that the proposed amendments were not necessary for determining the real questions in controversy and that the application was mala fide. The court also dismissed the application for the addition of a party, finding that the presence of the workers was not necessary for the adjudication of the issues in the writ petition. The court awarded costs to the respondents.

---