JUDGMENT 1. - Admittedly, in this case, a Notification (Annex.3) dated 23rd of August, 2010, was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (Act No.35 of 2009), and which is under-challenge in this writ petition on the ground of it being unconstitutional and ultra vires to the provisions of the Constitution. 2. Admittedly, the Act, in question, under which impugned notification is issued, is a Parliamentary Legislation, i.e., a Central Government Act. 3. Since the Union of India which has enacted the Act, is not made a party, the issue with regard to vires cannot be examined, in the absence of a necessary party before the Court. Indeed, as and when constitutional validity of any provision is challenged, the appropriate Government which has enacted such law has to be made a party, it being a necessary party in such case. It is only then its constitutional validity on the anvil of relevant entries of the constitution can be examined. 4. Since the petitioner has not arrayed Government of India/Union of India party in this writ petition, and hence we are not in a position to examine the constitutional validity of impugned provision/notification, in their absence. 5. As a consequence, we allow the writ petitioners to withdraw this writ petition, but with a liberty to file a fresh writ petition on the same cause of action on which present writ petition is filed by impleading all necessary parties to enable this Court to examine the constitutional validity of such provision/notification impugned in the writ petition. 6. As and when any such writ petition is filed, with proper pleadings and with property parties, the same shall be heard and decided in accordance with law.Order Accordingly. *******