JUDGMENT : S.L.P. (C) No. 7734/97 1. Broadly, there are two questions raised in this special leave petition. These are : (1) Validity of the project and the contract known as Dabhol Power Project and (2) the accountability of the State of Maharashtra (respondent No. 2) in this matter, particularly, on account of the inconsistent stand taken by it from time to time. The writ petition which was filed by the petitioner in the High Court was without obtaining leave of the court to bring the same in a representative capacity. For this reason, we required such an application to that effect in this Court for consideration of the question whether the petitioner should be permitted to sue in a representative capacity. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on that question. 2. We are satisfied that the above said first question relating to the validity of the project and the contract does not require a fresh examination at this stage since it is not in public interest now to reopen that question which has been considered by the courts on several occasions in earlier PIL matters brought for the purpose. We are also of the opinion that the stage at which the project now is, it is not in public interest to permit reopening of that matter for re-examination of the validity of the same once again. Leave is, therefore, refused in respect of the above said first question. 3. In our opinion, the second question relating to the accountability of the State of Maharashtra is a matter of subsisting public interest inasmuch as the accountability of persons holding any significant public office directly arises for consideration therein on the facts not in controversy because of the prima facie inconsistency appearing from the stand taken by the State Government from time to time. It is in public interest to consider the same. We are also satisfied that the petitioner No. 1 Center of Indian Trade Unions should be granted leave to pursue this matter in a representative 31 capacity. I.A. No. 2/97 for leave under Order 1 Rule 8, C.P.C. is granted to this limited extent. 4. Issue notice to respondent No. 2 only limited to the above said second question as 3: indicated earlier. The names of the petitioner No. 2 and the remaining respondents be deleted. 5. I.A. No. 2/97 for leave under Order 1 Rule 8, C.P.C. is granted to this limited extent. 4. Issue notice to respondent No. 2 only limited to the above said second question as 3: indicated earlier. The names of the petitioner No. 2 and the remaining respondents be deleted. 5. In view of the nature of proceedings, Shri Shanti Bhushan is requested to appear 4 as amicus curiae in this case. This is to clarify that the petitioner would have no independent or additional right of hearing in the case. 6. List for fixing a date on 14th July, 1997. S.L.P. (C) No......... (CC 4329/97) 7. In view of the order made by us today in S.L.P. (C) No. 7734/97, it is unnecessary to entertain this special leave petition separately. The same is, therefore, dismissed. 8. Dr. Dhawan who appears for the petitioners in this special leave petition, may assist Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioners in S.L.P. (C) No. 7734/97 appointed as amicus curiae. 9. The paper books of this special leave petition (CC 4329/97) be made available at the hearing of S.L.P. (C) 7734/97 for reference to any of the documents therein, if necessary.