JUDGMENT : 1. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and having perused the material placed on record, we are not persuaded to entertain this intra-Court appeal. 2. Shorn of un-necessary details, suffice it to notice for the present purpose that in a pending writ petition in this Court, being Writ Petition No.44789/2017, the appellants moved an application seeking their impleadment for being the complainants on whose representations and complaints the order impugned in the writ petition was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District. The learned Single Judge declined to accept the prayer of the applicants for impleadment with a short order that reads in its entirety as under:- “Heard on I.A.No.2/17. I.A.No.2/17 filed by the impleading applicants, who are complainants against the liquor shop, which was licensed by the Respondent -Department of Excise, at first instance and was later on closed under the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District on the basis of the Survey Report of Tahsildar and Assistant Commissioner. Mrs. Niloufer Akbar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents wants to file statement of objections to the present petition. The same may be filed within three weeks from today. However, this Court does not consider it necessary or appropriate to implead the applicants, who are complainants in the matter and it is for the Government to defend its own order under challenge in this petition. I.A.No.2/17 is accordingly rejected. Interim order granted earlier is continued until further orders. Put up after three weeks.” 3. Learned Counsel for the appellants has strenuously argued that the location of the liquor vending shop in question is in contravention of the applicable rules and is causing serious prejudice to the people of the locality. This apart, the liquor vending shop had been established on a Government land within 100 meters radius of the location of Schools, Colleges, SC/ST Colonies and Temples. Learned Counsel would submit that though the decision has been taken by the Excise Authorities on the complaints and representations made by the appellants, but they are deprived of the benefits of such orders for the reason of the Interim Order operating in the said writ petition. Learned Counsel would submit that though the decision has been taken by the Excise Authorities on the complaints and representations made by the appellants, but they are deprived of the benefits of such orders for the reason of the Interim Order operating in the said writ petition. Learned Counsel would further argue that the applicants are the persons directly affected by the existence of liquor vending shop at the location in question and they are in a position to effectively assist the Court in arriving at a just and proper conclusion of the matter. Thus, according to the learned Counsel, appellants ought to have been allowed to join as parties in the writ petition and at any rate, they ought to have been allowed to intervene so as to place on the relevant facts and submissions before the Court. 4. Learned Counsel has referred to and relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar and another: AIR 1963 SC 786 and in the case of State of Assam v. Union of India and Others: (2010) 10 SCC 408 . 5. In the case of Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has summarised the position of law in relation to the impleadment of parties in the following:- “(12) To summarise in a writ of certiorari not only the tribunal or authority whose order is sought to be quashed but also parties in whose favour the said order is issued are necessary parties. But it is in the discretion of the court to add or implead proper parties for completely settling all the questions that may be involved in the controversy either suo motu or on the application of a party to the writ or an application filed at the instance of such proper party. (13) In the present case Phudan Manjhi and Bhagwan Rajak were parties before the Commissioner as well as before the Board of Revenue. They succeeded in the said proceedings and the orders of the said tribunal were in their favour. It would be against all principles of natural justice to make an order adverse to them behind their back; and any order so made could not be an effective one. They were, therefore, necessary parties before the High Court. They succeeded in the said proceedings and the orders of the said tribunal were in their favour. It would be against all principles of natural justice to make an order adverse to them behind their back; and any order so made could not be an effective one. They were, therefore, necessary parties before the High Court. The record discloses that the appellant first impleaded them in his petition but struck them out at the time of the presentation of the petition. He did not file any application before the High Court for impleading them as respondents. In the circumstances, the petition filed by him was incompetent and was rightly rejected.” 6. In the case of State of Assam (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the principles in Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia and has also pointed out as under:- “16.We respectfully agree with the observations made by this Court in Udit Narain case and adopt the same. We may add that the law is now well settled that a necessary party is one without whom, no order can be made effectively and a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision of the question involved in the proceeding.” 7. The principles aforesaid are neither of any quarrel nor of any debate. However, it remains equally settled that any person, merely for being a complainant, who moved the administrative machinery for taking any decision contemplated by the statute, does not ipso facto gets a right to become a party to the litigation, if taken up in the Court of Law against the administrative action by any person, who feels aggrieved of such an action. It cannot be said in the present case that no order could be effectively made in the absence of the appellants. Hence, they are not the necessary parties. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the appellants do not answer to the description of proper party either, for it cannot be said that their presence is necessary for complete and effectual decision of the question involved in the matter. The questions involved in the writ petition are essentially between writ petitioner on one hand and the Government on the other. The questions involved in the writ petition are essentially between writ petitioner on one hand and the Government on the other. The appellants, merely for being the complainants in the matter do not get a right to intervene in the litigation pending in the Court in this matter. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Single Judge cannot said to be unjustified. 8. Writ Appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed. 9. In view of dismissal of the writ appeal, the pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and the same are also disposed of.