JUDGMENT This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 18 th August, 2009 passed in a batch of writ petitions alongwith the first writ petition W.P. (C) No. 5939 of 2008 out of which this appeal has been preferred. 2. The writ petitions are still subjudice before the learned Single Judge but the appellants have preferred this appeal against an interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in the batch of writ petitions including W.P.(C) 5939 of 2008 on the date referred to hereinbefore, whereby the learned Single granted interim relief to some of the Institutions which were private, aided and affiliated Schools by permitting them to raise school fee from the current Sessions starting from 2009-10 . However, the order is interim in nature as the writ petition was ordered to be listed on further date. 3. In course of argument, it could be noticed that the writ petition had been filed by the petitioners-appellants without even impleading the necessary party to the writ petition, who is Pappu Singh, who claimed to be a public spirited person and had moved the Jharkhand Education Tribunal, raising several issues before the Tribunal , which were essentially in the nature of public interest, viz. removing the live wire from the top of the building of a School , over loading of school bus, exorbitant fees charged by the School authorities etc. 4. It was first of all submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Jharkhand Education Tribunal in the first place could not assume the authorityand jurisdiction to entertain the cause as the Tribunal is not vested with the constitutional authority. Inspite of this, the Jharkhand Education Tribunal decided the matter and restrained the schools , including the appellants, from enhancing the School fees . 5. Four of the affected Schools, who are the appellants herein, alongwith several other Schools filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge, challenging the order passed by the Tribunal and as already stated , all the writ petitions are still subjudice before the learned Single Judge. However, an interim order was passed on 18th August, 2009 in the matters referred to in the impugned order, permitting some of the petitioners to enhance the fee but rejected the plea of the appellants to increase the school fees. 6. However, an interim order was passed on 18th August, 2009 in the matters referred to in the impugned order, permitting some of the petitioners to enhance the fee but rejected the plea of the appellants to increase the school fees. 6. The matter however appears to have been contested before the learned Single Judge, even though the complainant who had moved the Tribunal had not even been impleaded as party to the writ petition but the Jharkhand Education Tribunal which was merely a proforma respondent, as it had decided the matter as Chairman of the Jharkhand Education Tribunal, contested the matter by engaging a counsel in order to justify the order which it had passed as Chairman of the Tribunal. The contention of the counsel for the appellants to the extent that the Chairman of the Jharkhand Education Tribunal was not legally authorized to contest the matter in its personal capacity is correct as the order passed by the learned Tribunal was obviously in the discharge of his legal duties as Chairman in the capacity of a quasi judicial authority and, therefore, the Chairman at the most could be a proforma respondent in the writ petition. But in the process, the counsel for the appellant is also missing that the writ petition could not have been filed without impelading the necessary party which was Pappu Singh, who had moved the Tribunal in which the orders were passed and has been assailed by the petitioners before the learned Single Judge. 7. Confronted with this technical and legal impediment, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that permission may be granted to him to implead the necessary party to the appeal, which cannot be accepted as this appeal cannot be held maintainable against an interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition which had been filed by the appellants without even impleading the necessary party and hence at the stage of appeal, this permission cannot be granted. The error which was committed by the petitioners by filing a writ petition without impleading necessary party, cannot be allowed to be compounded by entertaining an appeal and interfering with the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge by over looking the technical and legal hurdle of non joinder of necessary party having vital implication. 8. The error which was committed by the petitioners by filing a writ petition without impleading necessary party, cannot be allowed to be compounded by entertaining an appeal and interfering with the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge by over looking the technical and legal hurdle of non joinder of necessary party having vital implication. 8. Hence to arrive at a just solution, we deem it appropriate to direct the appellants to withdraw this appeal with liberty to move the learned Single Judge for impleadment of the necessary party, who obviously shall be permitted to contest the matter. The question as to whether the Chairman of the Tribunal can be permitted to contest the matter in his individual capacity, although the order was passed by him as a quasi judicial authority, is left open to be considered by the learned Single Judge. 9. The appeal, under the circumstance, is dismissed as withdrawn.