M/S Future Gaming And Hotel Services PVT. LTD. A vs. M/S Summit Online Trade Solutions PVT. LTD.

Held

The Court allowed the application for intervention. The Court reasoned that no party would suffer any prejudice if the applicant was permitted to address the Court on the question of law as an intervener in the connected writ petition. This was particularly because the writ petitioners (opposite party Nos. 1 & 2) had no objection to the applicant being impleaded as an intervener. The Court directed that the learned counsel for the applicant would be heard in the said connected writ petition. The Court did not explicitly decide on the merits of the original writ petition, as the application was solely for intervention.

Facts

The applicant, a distributor appointed for selling lottery tickets of Arunachal Pradesh, sought permission to intervene in a connected writ petition. The applicant had previously filed a writ petition which was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh one. The applicant argued that intervention would avoid multiplicity of litigation and that they would be an affected party if adverse orders were passed in the writ petition. The opposite parties, the writ petitioners, had no objection to the intervention. However, the Union of India (GST Council) opposed the application, citing their affidavit filed in opposition and arguing that the applicant should not be impleaded as a party, especially after obtaining liberty to file a fresh writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant, having withdrawn a previous writ petition with liberty to file a fresh one, should be permitted to intervene in the connected writ petition as an intervener. Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant contended that intervention would prevent multiplicity of litigation and that they would be an affected party if adverse orders were passed in the writ petition. They also submitted that the writ petitioners (opposite party Nos. 1 & 2) had no objection to their intervention. Revenue's Arguments: The Union of India (GST Council) opposed the application, arguing that the applicant may not be allowed to be impleaded as a party. They further submitted that having obtained liberty to file a fresh writ petition, the applicant is not entitled to address the court on the merits of the case by way of intervention.