JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. CMP No. 20573 of 2025 This application has been filed by the petitioner seeking permission to amend the main petition by incorporating paras 3.I, 3.J, 3.K and prayer clause B.1, for inserting the submissions related to and prayer for quashing and setting aside communication/order dated 6.1.2025 (Annexure R-6/16) and Notification dated 15.3.2025 (Annexure R-6/17), which have been issued in consequence of decision of State Level Committee (SLC) dated 4.7.2024 related to Agenda 3 (Annexure P-9) which is already under challenge in this petition. 2. It has been submitted on behalf of applicant/petitioner that in reply filed by respondents to the Writ Petition, there is reference of Notification dated 15.3.2025 (Annexure R-6/17) issued in consequence of decision of State Level Committee dated 4.7.2024 and also communication/order (Annexure R-6/16) dated 6.1.2025, whereby permission/direction has been given to convert traditional Katha Bhatis into Katha Bhatis using IBR Boilers. 3. It is case of the petitioner that he had filed an appeal on 26.9.2024 against the decision of SLC dated 4.7.2024 and the said appeal was decided on 30.4.2025, but at the time of filing said appeal, petitioner was not aware about the action of respondents-Department contained in communication/order dated 6.1.2025 (Annexure R-6/16) and notification dated 15.3.2025 (Annexure R-6/17) whereby Annexure-A of Notification dated 29.4.2008 has been amended, mandating to convert all traditional Katha Bhatis into Katha Bhatis with IBR boilers. 4. Prayer of amendment has been opposed by respondent- State as well as private respondents on the ground that petitioner cannot be permitted to fill up the lacuna after filing of petition by permitting him to lay challenge to the documents/orders/Notification already in existence before filing of the petition. 5. Learned counsel for private respondents has submitted that none of the requirements to permit the amendment is in existence in present matter. 5. Learned counsel for private respondents has submitted that none of the requirements to permit the amendment is in existence in present matter. He has submitted that amendment sought to be incorporated is not necessary for purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties; plea sought to be added could have been added in the main petition by acting with due diligence; order/Notification proposed to be challenged are not subsequent to filing of the petition, but they were very much in existence prior to filing of the petition; amendment sought is actuated with malice; cause of action in main petition is not related to amendment sought and; after allowing the amendment nature of lis is going to be changed. 6. It has also been submitted that keeping in view provisions of The Competition Act, 2002, especially Section 2(h) and Section 4(2)(a) thereof, entrepreneur like petitioner cannot be allowed to overawe the entrepreneur like private respondents because petitioner has already converted his traditional Katha Bhatis into Katha Bhatis with IBR boilers and has also obtained benefit of decision of SLC dated 4.7.2024 and now by filing present main petition and also incorporating the proposed amendments, he, with malafide intention, is trying to spoil the career of private respondents who, in furtherance to the decision of respondents- State, have invested huge amount in crores after borrowing the same from the market. He has submitted that proposed amendments are nothing but only a tactic to delay the matter to enjoy interim protection by continuing the lis for a long time at least to pass the season related to business of Katha Bhatis. 7. To substantiate his plea, learned counsel for private respondents has relied upon pronouncement of the Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, (2022) 16 SCC 1 , by referring following paras:- “71.2. All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall’, in the latter part of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. 71.3. The prayer for amendment is to be allowed. 71.3.1. If the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties. 71.3.2. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall’, in the latter part of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. 71.3. The prayer for amendment is to be allowed. 71.3.1. If the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties. 71.3.2. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the order side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment do not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side, and (c)  the amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). 71.4 …. … …. 71.4.1. …. ….. ….. 71.4.2. …. …. ….. 71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is mala fide, or 71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence.” 8. It has been further contended that in case the amendment is allowed, respondents shall loose a valid defence. 9. It has been submitted on behalf of respondents that there is lack of due diligence on the part of petitioner and proposed amendment has been sought at a belated stage and as per provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no such amendment is permissible after commencement of trial and in present petition reply to the petition already stands filed and, therefore, this application deserves to be rejected. 10. It has been submitted that SLC has not taken any final decision, but the decision taken in its meeting dated 4.7.2024 is recommendatory in nature and, therefore, order dated 6.1.2025 and Notification dated 15.3.2020 cannot be said to be issued by the authority on the basis of decision of SLC, but these decision have been taken by the concerned Department/authority by taking into consideration all facts including the recommendation of SLC, therefore, it has been contended that this application deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs. 11. 11. In the un-amended petition, challenge has been laid to Notification dated 29.4.2008 (Annexure P-2), which provides provision for regulating Katha Bhatis and Katha Bhatis using IBR Boilers, decision of 15th meeting of SLC dated 4.7.2024 is related to Agenda No. 3 (Annexure P-9), whereby SLC has decided that each traditional Katha Bhatis will be converted to Khata Bhatis with IBR Boilers with requirement of registration of Unit with concerned DCF/DFO after paying processing fee of Rs.1,00,000/-; as well as to the order dated 30.4.2025 (Annexure P-11), whereby prayer of petitioner in appeal preferred by him to cancel/set aside the decision taken by SLC to upgrade similarly situated traditional Katha Bhatis even in the absence of their consent and without approving name and location of their industry being in violation of provisions of guidelines, has been rejected. 12. The amendment has been proposed to lay challenge to decision/order dated 6.1.2025 (Annexure R-6/16), whereby 11 persons, on the basis of decision taken by the SLC dated 4.7.2024, have been permitted for conversion of traditional Katha Bhatis into Katha Bhatis with IBR Boilers; and also to Notification dated 15.3.2025, (Annexure R-6/17), whereby condition for regulating working of Katha Bhatis using IBR Boilers has been revised by providing that traditional Katha Bhatis will have to be converted to Katha Bhatis with IBR Boilers, subject to payment of processing fee. 13. The petition is at initial stage. The applications for impleading certain private respondents have been allowed on 11.9.2025. In this petition, hearing for consideration either to decide at admission stage or for admission has yet to take place and it is plea of the petitioner that he came to know about the aforesaid documents (Annexures R-6/16 and R-6/17) on placing these documents with the reply filed by the respondents-State. In the totality of circumstances and stage of the petition, we are of the opinion that it cannot be said that application for amendment has been filed at a belated stage without any due diligence on the part of the petitioner. 14. The order/communication dated 6.1.2025 and Notification dated 5.3.2025 have been issued subsequent to filing of appeal by the petitioner, which was filed on 26.9.2024 and there is no reference of these communication/order/notification in the impugned order dated 30.4.2025 passed in the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 15. 14. The order/communication dated 6.1.2025 and Notification dated 5.3.2025 have been issued subsequent to filing of appeal by the petitioner, which was filed on 26.9.2024 and there is no reference of these communication/order/notification in the impugned order dated 30.4.2025 passed in the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 15. The proposal for laying challenge to the order/communication dated 6.1.2025 and Notification dated 15.3.2025 is not going to change the nature of the petition, as the petition has been filed to assail the decision of SLC dated 4.7.2024 and order/communication dated 6.1.2025 and Notification dated 15.3.2025, are claimed to have been based upon decision dated 4.7.2024 taken by the SLC. Therefore, for complete, proper and final adjudication, the prayer for amendment deserves to be allowed. 16. Plea raised on behalf of private respondents with respect to malice in filing the petition as well as application for amendment and impermissibility for filing the petition by the petitioner, in view of provisions of the Competition Act, 2002, are to be adjudicated and decided during final adjudication of the petition. 17. In view of above observation, we are of the considered opinion that application deserves to be allowed at this stage and accordingly, applicant/petitioner is permitted to carry out proposed amendments in the petition. Amended petition is already filed with the application. The application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.