Education Rules, 1959 - Chapter-V, Rule 2(5) - Objections Locus Standi - persons interested - persons who feel that no new schools are needed in the locality and persons who think that a Boys' School is the need and not a Girl's School, are all sufficiently interested in the matter. The appellants who claim to represent a sizable section of the parents of the locality prefer a Boy's School, if the Government is prepared to sanction any school at all. A restricted approach cannot be made in all cases in respect of locus standi. In the facts and circumstances and in the background of the statutory provisions involved, the appellant/petitioners have sufficient locus standi to approach this Court as applicants for certiorari. [Abraham Vadakkancherry and others v. State of Kerala and others, 1985 (1) ILR 186 (DB), Bhaskaran, ACJ and MP. Menon (J)]
Locus Standi - The panel recommended by the High Court would indicate, in the order of merit, the names of suitable candidates. A candidate whose name is found in the panel recommended by the High Court under Article 233 of the Constitution cannot be equated with a candidate included in a ranked list prepared by the Service Commission. The petitioners whose names are included in the ranked list forwarded by the High Court have locus standi to challenge the arbitrary action of the Government. [Lakshmikutty v. State of Kerala and others, 1985 (2) ILR 744 = 1985 KLT 490 = 1985 (1) KLN 345 (DB), UL Bhat and Bhaskaran Nambiar (JJ)]
Art.226 - The members of the Association are tax-payers which can espouse the cause of the members in matters of public interest, such as questions of vital interest to the community as a whole without regard to their status, class or occupation or questions which shock the conscience of the public when life or liberty is in danger and the victims are so poor or so helpless that they have no access to the law. In all these and other like situations, public interest litigation is a well accepted mode of invoking the law by any person or an association of persons at the instance of the helpless victims. But this petition is not concerned with any matter of public interest, but of individual interests of the assessees who happen to be members of the association. Each assessee is entitled to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But he must himself do so, or by a duly authorised power of attorney holder, which the petitioner admittedly is not, and pay the requisite court fee which admittedly has not been paid. It is no where stated in this petition that the Secretary of the association is himself an assessee. The petitioner is therefore not shown to be an aggrieved person. [Mathew v. Edathua Panchayath, 1988 (2) KLT 329, Koch Thommen (J)]
Locus standi - Validity of license for Rice Mill Manager of nearby school has the right. The School Manager is not a person whose private interests are affected by the impugned order. He is a member of the local public. The impugned order of the District Collector is said to adversely affects public interest. Being Manager of a school with hundreds of children, he has sufficient interest to maintain the action. There has been breach of public duty and violation of the statute on the part of the District Collector. This member of the public can certainly enforce the public duty and the observance of the legal provisions. That is essential in maintaining the rule of law and to prevent arbitrary and unlawful action on the part of the public authority. [V.P. Mohamedkutty v. Thottoli Kunhikoya Haji and others, 1985 (1) ILR 111 = 1985 KLT 69 = 1985 AIR 33 = 1984 (1) KLJ 874. UL.Bhat (J)]
The petitioners have no fundamental right to carry on business in liquor is well established. As held by the Supreme Court in AIR 1954 SC 119, only a person who is directly affected by law can challenge it. The petitioners have, as already stated, not been successful in establishing that the impugned provision directly infringe any of their rights, leave alone fundamental rights. The petitioners, therefore, have no locus standi to challenge impugned provision. [K.K. Thomas & others v. State of Kerala and others, 1985 KLJ 349 = 1985 KLT 594, K.P. Radhakrishna Menon (J)]
If any person is appointed against the relevant statutory provisions, the concerned authorities will have to take congnisance and appropriate steps in that behalf. The Unions of head load workers cannot set up any right in themselves or in their members, unless such a right is founded on any statutory provision or longstanding custom. The Union, their leaders and their henchmen cannot claim that they alone have the right to do the loading and unloading work. They have no locus standi to advance such a plea. The claim, if at all can be made only on behalf of "specified workers". [Shamsuddin v. District Collector, 1988 (2) KLT SN 106, Paripoornan (J)]
Unincorporated Association - Panchayath (building tax) Rules 1963 (Kerala) Rule 6. Writ petition by the secretary of Tax Payers Association challenging the Revision of Building Tax of all the houses in a Panchayath is not maintainable. Held unincorporated Associations cannot sue or be used in their own name and only the members of such society jointly can bring a legal proceeding. [Porathissery Panchayat Tax Payer's Association v. Executive Officer, 1989 (1) KLT 849 = 1989 (1) KLJ 664 = 1989 (2) ILR 247, Paripoornan & K.A. Nayar (JJ)]
Public interest litigation - locus standi - The petitioner is an incorporated association challenging all the orders passed against all the owners of the building. Such a petition cannot be justified under any public interest litigation. The law relating to locus standi, payment of court fee and the question whether an unincorporated association persons can file a writ petition cannot be ignored. Apart from statutory exceptions, unincorporated associations cannot sue or be sued in their own name and only the members of such society jointly can bring a legal proceedings. [Porathissery Panchayat Tax Payer's Association v. Executive Officer, 1989 (1) KLT 849 = 1989 (1) KLJ 664 = 1989 (2) ILR 247, Paripoornan & K.A. Nayar (JJ)]