Sen, J. - (1.) These writ petitions under Article 32 must be dismissed in limine. This is nothing but an attempt to get rid of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of S. Jagannath v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 87 by a side wind. A large number of review petitions have been filed against that judgment and are now pending to be heard. If the prayers made in the writ petitions are granted, the judgment will be robbed of its efficacy and the Aqua farms will be able to carry on their business merrily notwithstanding the direction to the contrary given in that judgment.
(2.) On behalf of the writ petitioners, Mr. K. K. Venugopal has argued that the writ petitioners were not parties to the proceedings before the Court in the case of Jagannath (supra) and the decision is not binding upon them. This argument is not acceptable for several reasons. The case of Jagannath had received widest publicity. Various investigations into facts relating to shrimp culture was made, reports were obtained from various sources like NEERI, Central Board for Prevention and Control of Water Pollution and various other authorities. It is difficult to believe that the petitioners were unaware of all these events. A large number of shrimp farmers and organisations representing them appeared in Court and placed their points of view about the dispute.
(3.) Secondly, in a case like this, there is no question of invoking the principle of Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was a public interest litigation. There are Aqua Culture farms all over India along the coast-line. A large number of them appeared and the case was argued at great length for very many days and the decision was ultimately given. Now, a few persons cannot come up and say that they were not made parties in that case or that they were unaware of that case altogether and, therefore, the judgment does not bind them and the case should be heard all over again. If this practice is allowed, there will be no end to litigation. This practice was deprecated by this Court in the case of Makhanlal Waza v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1971) 3 SCR 832 .;