(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Hon'ble The Chief
Justice)
This Writ Appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the
learned single Judge dated 07.01.2005, passed in W.P.No.22674 of 2004.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record.
3. In our opinion, this appeal is liable to be dismissed on the
ground of lack of locus standi. The appellant was not a party in the writ
petition. The writ petition was filed by M/s. Apple FMCG Marketing Pvt.
Ltd., which is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. The
prayer in the writ petition was for a mandamus restraining respondents from
interfering with the business activities of the petitioner - company in
selling its products through its distributors by using the network marketing
system. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned singe Judge by his
order dated 07.01.2005.
4. The writ petitioner has not filed this appeal. Instead, it has
been filed by an Association which claims to have been formed to redress the
grievances of its members which are companies involved in the marketing of
products and services using the medium of Multi Level Marketing, otherwise
called Net Work Marketing. The association has alleged that it is registered
as a society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act.
5. In our opinion, this writ appeal is not maintainable as the
appellant cannot have any personal grievance in the matter, and at best only
its members can have any grievance.
6. It is well settled that ordinarily a writ petition or writ appeal
can only be filed by someone who is personally aggrieved.
7. In Indian Sugar Mills Association Vs. Secretary to Government,
AIR 1951 All 1 a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court held (vide paragraphs
10 and 11) :-
"Para-10: The further argument is that any person, whether
his interests are directly affected or not, can file an application
challenging any Act of the Legislature or the order of the Government on the
ground that it is ultra vires. In this connection we cannot do better than
quote the decision of the learned Judges of the Supreme Court of the United
States in Commonwealth of Massachusetts V. Andrew W. Mellon, 262 U.S.
447:67 Lawyers Edn. 1078, Sutherland, J. who delivered the opinion of the
Court quoted with approval the remarks of Thomson, J. with whom Story, J.
concurred, which were as follows:
It is only where the rights of persons or property
are involved, and when such rights can be presented under some judicial form
of proceedings, that courts of justice can interpose relief.
Dealing with the question whether a single tax-payer can challenge the
enforcement of a Federal Appropriation Act on the ground that it was invalid
and would increase the burden of his taxes, the learned Judge observed:
His interest in the moneys of the treasury-partly realised
from taxation and partly from other sources-is shared with millions of others;
is comparatively minute and indeterminable; and the effect upon future
taxation of any payment out of the funds so remote, fluctuating, and uncertain
that no basis is afforded for an appeal to the preventive powers of a Court of
equity??If one tax-payer may champion and litigate such a cause, then every
other tax-payer may do the same, not only in respect to the statute hereunder
review, but also in respect of every other appropriation Act and statute whose
administration requires the outlay of public money, and whose validity may be
questioned. The bare suggestion of such a result, with its attendant
inconveniences, goes far to sustain the conclusion which we have reached, that
a suit of this character cannot be maintained.
Para-11: Those remarks are with reference to a suit. They are much more
applicable to proceedings under Article 226 which are of a summary and of a
coercive nature without providing for a normal trial or a right of appeal
except in those cases where a substantial question of interpretation of the
constitution arises. This Court is being flooded with applications under
Article 226 of the Constitution which is seriously affecting the normal work
of the Court. We feel that the time has come when we may point out that
Article 226 of the Constitution was not intended to provide an alternative
method of redress to the normal process of a decision in an action brought in
the usual courts established by law. The powers under this Article should be
sparingly used and only in those clear cases where the rights of a person have
been seriously infringed and he has no other adequate and specific remedy
available to him".
8. No doubt, the law has developed since the above decision was given by the
Allahabad High Court in the year 1951, yet it must be reiterated that the
development in the law relating to locus standi in writ petitions only carved
out some exceptions to the main rule which has been stated correctly by the
Allahabad High Court, and it is not that this main rule itself has been
totally abolished. Exceptions remain exceptions, and do not become the main
rule. Hence, we must reiterate that ordinarily a writ petition can only be
filed by a person who is personally aggrieved.
9. In Vinoy Kumar Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2001 SC 1739 the Supreme Court
observed (vide paragraph-2):-
Para-2: Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to
file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or
his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor
is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired
interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The relief under
Article 226 of the Constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour
of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The exception to the general rule is
only in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of habeas corpus or quo
warranto or filed in public interest. It is a matter of prudence, that the
Court confines the exercise of writ jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or
legal injuries caused to a particular person or his fundamental rights are
violated, and not to entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the
instance of third party where there is an effective legal aid organization
which can take care of such cases. Even in cases filed in public interest,
the Court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party
only when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden
is threatened and such person or determined class of persons is, by reason or
poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged
position, unable to approach the Court for relief (emphasis supplied).
10. In State of Orissa Vs. Ram Chandra Dev & Another, AIR 1964 SC 68
5 the Supreme Court observed (vide paragraph - 8):-
But though the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article
226 is wide in that sense, the concluding words of the article clearly
indicate that before a writ or an appropriate order can be issued in favour of
a party, it must be established that the party has a right and the said right
is illegally invaded or threatened. The existence of a right is thus the
foundation of a petition under Article 226
.
11. Similarly, in Gadde Venkateswara Rao Vs. Government of Andhra
Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 828 (vide paragraph- 8) the Supreme Court observed:-
The right that can be enforced under Article 226 also shall
ordinarily be the personal or individual right of the petitioner himself (
emphasis supplied), though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus
or quo warranto this rule may have to be relaxed or modified
.
12. In Sand Carrier's Owners' Union and Others Vs. Board of Trustees for the
Port of Calcutta, AIR 1990 Cal 176 it was observed by the Calcutta High Court
that
a Public Interest Litigation can be moved, where persons concerned for
whose benefit it is moved are socially and educationally backward, and Public
Interest Litigation is also maintainable in cases such as environmental
pollution, etc.
However, it was also observed:-
The members of such association may be affected by a common order and
may have common grievance, but for the purpose of enforcing the rights of the
members, writ petition at the instance of such association is not
maintainable
.
Accordingly, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the
Owners' Union.
13. A similar view has been taken in Government Press Employees'
Association, Bangalore Vs. Government of Mysore, AIR 1962 Mysore 25.
14. In our view, the appellant in this case has no grievance in the
matter. At best, its members could have a grievance. It cannot be said that
the members of the appellant - association are so poor that they could not
individually file writ appeals. It is also not a case of the nature of
environmental pollution or some great hardship caused to the public at large
or a disadvantaged section of it (like prisoners, exploited women, children,
etc.) regarding which Public Interest Litigation has been permitted by the
Supreme Court. Hence, in our considered view, this writ appeal is not
maintainable, as the appellant has no locus standi. Accordingly, this writ
appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.A.M.Ps. are also
dismissed.
Index: Yes
Website: Yes
Vu/sm
Copy to:-
1. Union of India,
rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Finance,
New Delhi.
2. State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Chief Secretary,
Secretariat,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 9.
3. The Director General of Police,
Kamarajar Salai,
Chennai - 4.