Case Background
The writ petition, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14167 of 2023, was filed by three practicing advocates who were also trained mediators at the Patna High Court Mediation Centre.
They challenged the validity of the Bihar Civil Procedure (Mediation) (Amendment) Rule, 2019. According to them, these Rules were enacted without proper legislative jurisdiction and went against the mediation scheme originally formulated by orders of the Supreme Court.
Besides attacking the Rules, the petitioners also asked for various directions. These included payment of arrears of mediation fees and enhancement of the fee structure, proper implementation of mediation schemes, restructuring of the Mediation Committee, creation of a separate financial head for the mediation centre, and a change in the administrative set up of the Patna High Court Mediation Centre.
On 06.12.2023, when the matter came up, the Advocate General objected that new mediators, who had been duly appointed, were not parties in the case. Since any order on the Rules and related actions could affect their rights, the Court directed the petitioners to implead them within four weeks.
On 13.01.2024, the petitioners filed an application to add these newly appointed mediators as parties. However, they simultaneously stated that they were not claiming any relief against those persons. The Court rejected this stand, observing that the attempt appeared to be to avoid the responsibility of issuing notice to all affected persons.
The Bench made it clear that if the impugned Rule of 2019 was set aside, the appointment of those mediators would be in peril. Since serious prejudice could be caused to them, they had to be heard. The petitioners were therefore directed to ensure that their impleadment application was filed properly and pursued.
An interlocutory application, I.A. No. 3 of 2024, was then filed seeking amendment of the writ petition to add subsequent developments and implead necessary parties as respondents. By order dated 23.01.2024, this application was allowed. Notices were ordered to be issued to the newly added respondents by both ordinary process and registered post with acknowledgment due. The petitioners were directed to file requisites for this within two weeks.
While the writ was pending, another interlocutory application, I.A. No. 4 of 2024, was filed. The petitioners sought modification of the order dated 23.01.2024.
They informed the Court that, after the enactment of the Mediation Act on 15.09.2023, 36 mediators, including the petitioners, had been removed from the mediators’ panel of the Patna High Court. Further, 40 advocates had been appointed and trained as mediators and 20 mediators had been retained with the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Justice on the recommendation of the Patna High Court Mediation Centre.
The petitioners claimed that the action of the Mediation Centre was without jurisdiction, illegal, void and ab initio. At the same time, they said that serving notices by both processes (ordinary and registered post) would impose heavy costs on them. They requested the Court to permit service of notices through Dasti summons instead and to modify the earlier order. By order dated 27.02.2024, the Court dismissed I.A. No. 4 of 2024 and directed the petitioners to take steps for fresh service of notice on the newly added respondents, failing which the writ petition would stand rejected as against them.
What the Court Examined and Decided
Despite these clear directions, the petitioners did not file requisites for service of notices upon the newly added respondents. When the matter was taken up on 24.02.2026, the petitioners’ counsel argued that, due to the order dated 27.02.2024, the writ petition had only been dismissed against the newly added respondents (respondent nos. 25 to 83) and still survived against respondents nos. 1 to 24.
On this basis, it was strongly contended that the Court should still hear and decide the constitutional validity of the Bihar Civil Procedure (Mediation) (Amendment) Rule, 2019 on merits, since the challenge was essentially to the Rules and not directly to the individual mediators.
Counsel for respondent nos. 7 to 16 (Patna High Court and related authorities) opposed this. He pointed out that the petitioners, while disobeying repeated orders to serve notices, had also expanded their reliefs.
Through I.A. No. 2 of 2023, the petitioners had sought a direction to call for the decisions and recommendations of the Patna High Court Mediation Committee and to quash them after production. They further sought to quash Memo No. 1530-53 dated 11.10.2023 issued by the Registrar-cum-Coordinator, Patna High Court Mediation Centre.
Under that Memo, the Hon’ble Chief Justice had approved, on the recommendation of the Mediation Committee, the list of 20 existing mediators of the Patna High Court Mediation Centre for renewal of their tenure for a further period of three years in terms of Rule 4 of the 2019 Rules. The petitioners also sought quashing of an Office Order dated 11.10.2023 by which, again on the basis of the Committee’s recommendation, 40 advocates were empanelled as mediators in the Mediation Centre for three years.
Thus, while directly challenging the continuation and appointment of these mediators, the petitioners had consciously avoided serving them with notice. The respondent’s counsel argued that continuing the writ proceedings without making these affected mediators proper parties and serving them was wholly bad and illegal.
After hearing both sides, the Bench framed the core question: whether, in the absence of necessary parties, the High Court should decide a writ petition when its judgment would vitally affect those absent persons.
The Court then turned to settled principles of law. It reiterated that no adverse order can be passed against a person who is not made a party to the litigation.
The Bench referred to the Supreme Court decision in Ranjan Kumar and Others v. The State of Bihar and Others, reported in (2014) 16 SCC 187. In that case, the appellants had not been impleaded as respondents before the High Court, yet the High Court invalidated the selection and nullified their appointments. The Supreme Court held this to be violative of principles of natural justice and declared that, as all the appointees were not impleaded, the writ petition itself was defective and no relief could be granted.
The Patna High Court also relied on paragraph 28 of another Supreme Court judgment, Prabodh Verma and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 251. There, a three-judge Bench examined an earlier decision of the Allahabad High Court in the “Sangh case”.
The Supreme Court noted that the writ petition in that case suffered from serious defects, particularly non-joinder of necessary parties. Reserve pool teachers, who were vitally concerned, had not been made parties, not even in a representative capacity. The matter was thus decided in their absence.
The Supreme Court laid down and reaffirmed the principle that a High Court ought not to decide a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents, or at least some of them in a representative capacity if the number is too large. It held that where petitioners refuse to implead such necessary parties, the writ petition should be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.
Applying these principles, the Patna High Court examined the reliefs sought in I.A. No. 2 of 2023. The petitioners wanted Memo No. 1530-53 dated 11.10.2023, approving renewal of 20 existing mediators, to be quashed. They also wanted the related Office Order approving empanelment of 40 advocates as mediators to be set aside. All this was done on the basis of the amended Rule, 2019 which they also challenged.
The Court held that, in such a situation, those 20 existing mediators and 40 newly empanelled advocates were clearly necessary parties. Any order passed on the writ would “certainly vitally affect them”. Their names had in fact been approved by the Hon’ble Chief Justice for empanelment or renewal.
The Court had already earlier rejected the petitioners’ argument that no relief was sought against the newly appointed mediators. It had directed the petitioners to implead them and, in pursuance of that, the petitioners had taken steps to add them as party respondents. However, they failed to deposit the requisites for service of notices upon them, in defiance of the Court’s order.
In these circumstances, the Bench concluded that further continuation of the writ petition would be “wholly bad and illegal” on both counts: non-joinder and non-service on necessary parties, and disobedience of the Court’s clear directions.
On this reasoning, the Patna High Court declined to go into the merits of the challenge to the Bihar Civil Procedure (Mediation) (Amendment) Rule, 2019 or to examine the validity of the empanelment and renewal decisions. Instead, it dismissed the writ petition itself.
Accordingly, by judgment dated 13.03.2026, the writ petition was dismissed. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar authored the judgment, with Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo agreeing.
Why This Judgment Matters
This decision is important for two main reasons.
First, it reinforces a basic but powerful rule: a court will not pass orders that harm someone’s rights without giving that person a chance to be heard. If you challenge someone’s appointment, renewal, or selection, that person must normally be made a party and served with notice. Otherwise, the Court may simply dismiss the case, no matter how strong the legal arguments might be.
Second, in the specific context of the Patna High Court Mediation Centre, the judgment leaves the existing framework undisturbed. The Bihar Civil Procedure (Mediation) (Amendment) Rule, 2019, the Memo and Office Order dated 11.10.2023, and the present panel of mediators all continue to operate as before because the challenge failed on procedural grounds.
For advocates and mediators, this case is a reminder that if they want to question rules or panel changes, they must strictly follow procedural requirements, especially about impleading all affected persons and complying with the Court’s directions on service.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can the Patna High Court decide a writ petition challenging mediation rules and mediators’ empanelment when the mediators whose appointments are at stake are not properly impleaded and served?
Answer: No. The Court held that the mediators whose empanelment and renewal were under challenge are necessary parties. In their absence, and in view of the petitioners’ failure to serve them despite orders, the writ petition itself was defective and had to be dismissed. - Issue: Does a writ petition survive against some official respondents if it effectively stands dismissed against the directly affected individuals?
Answer: In this case, the Court held that further continuation of the writ petition would be wholly bad and illegal because any decision on the impugned Rules and orders would vitally affect the unserved mediators. Therefore, the entire writ petition was dismissed without examining the merits.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Ranjan Kumar and Others v. The State of Bihar and Others, (2014) 16 SCC 187
- Prabodh Verma and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (1984) 4 SCC 251 (paragraph 28 extracted and relied upon)
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14167 of 2023
Case Title: Jyoti Prakash and Others v. The State of Bihar and Others
Citation: 2026 (3) PLJR 14
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar
Date of Judgment: 13.03.2026
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under Article 226 challenging the Bihar Civil Procedure (Mediation) (Amendment) Rule, 2019 and related orders regarding Patna High Court Mediation Centre mediators’ panel.
Advocates:
- For the Petitioners: Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
- For the State/Respondents: Mr. P. K. Shahi, Advocate General; Mr. Vikash Kumar, AC to AG
- For the Patna High Court: Mr. Piyush Lall, Advocate
Link to Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
