SARASAMMA A.G. Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALLEPPEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims to be the Secretary of an associ­ation by name Kanjipadam Vanitha Samajam which is stated to be a society registered under the Travancore -Cochin Literary,Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act,1955 and she has brought this writ petition in her individual capacity as also on behalf of the said Society.The reliefs prayed for in this writ petition are:

(2.) BY G.O.MS.25/65/HLD dated 11 th January 1965 the State Government sanctioned the construction of a permanent building to house a Family Planning Sub Centre at Kanjippadam provided the Ambalapuzha Pan­chayat within whose local limits Kanjippadam is situated is able to obtain tree of cost and place at the disposal of the Health Department a plot of 15 cents of land for locating the said Sub Centre.It appears that the constru­ction of the permanent building,though sanctioned,could not be taken up for a considerable time on account of the inability of the Panchayat to obtain free surrender of the necessary land.Ultimately,however,in May 1970,the 4 th respondent -Panchayat succeeded in getting the surrender of a plot of 15 cents,free of cost,in Sy.No.280/5 and moved the concerned authorities of the Health Department to have the permanent Sub Centre con­structed on the said site.The then Medical Officer in charge of family planning appears to have inspected that site and raised certain objections regarding its suitability for the purpose in question and suggested that the avai­lability of alternate sites should also be considered.Sub­sequently the Vanitha Samajam of which the petitioner claims to be the Secretary approached the Panchayat with an offer to donate 5 cents of land,stating also that the owner of the adjoining plot was prepared to donate an additional extent of 10 cents.The petitioner,therefore,requested the Panchayat that the permanent building for the Sub Centre should be constructed on the said area of 15 cents.It is the case of the petitioner that the plot so offered by her is in every respect superior and more suited for the purpose in question than the land comprised in Sy.No.280/5 and her grievance is that notwithstanding this,the District Collector has selected the plot originally suggested by the Panchayat(Sy.No.280/5)for locating the permanent building for the Sub Centre.It is this decision stated to have been taken by the District Collector that the petitioner seeks to get quashed by the issuance of a writ of certiorari.

(3.) A preliminary objection has been taken by the con­testing respondents challenging the locus standi of the petitioner to maintain this writ petition,their contention being that no legal right whatever of the petitioner or of the Samajam which she claims to represent has been infringed by the impugned decision taken by the Collector in the exercise of a purely administrative function and that hence the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be availed of by the petitioner.There is considerable force in this preliminary objection.As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Calcutta Gas Company(Proprietary)Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and others 1962 S.C.1044 it is implicit in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 that the relief asked for must be one to enforce a legal right and that the right that can be enforced should ordinarily be die personal or individual right of the petitioner himself except in the case of writs like habeas corpus and quo warranto. Reliance is however placed by the petitioner's counsel on certain observations contained in the decision of the Supreme Court in Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others A.I.R.1966 S.C.828 as supporting her contention that any party who is in any manner prejudiced by the action of a public officer can seek redress under Article 226 of the Constitution.An examination of the facts of that case as set out in the said decision reveals that that was a case whether the peti­tioner before the Supreme Court was the president of a Panchayat Samithi who was held by the Court to be the representative of a Committee which was in law the trus­tee of large amounts collected from the villagers for a public purpose under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Pan­chayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads Act such a body had a distinct statutory role to play and both under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Pari­shads Act as also under the General Law the said body was held by the Supreme Court to have a legal interest in the subject -matter of the controversy and was hence a person prejudicially affected in the eye of law by the action impug­ned in that case.That decision is clearly distinguishable and cannot have any application to the present case where the impugned action is not taken under any statutory provision whatever and the petitioner cannot also be said to have any legal interest in regard to the said matter in her individual capacity or in any representative capacity like that of a trustee.The petitioner's case is only that both the Samajam as well as herself individually are interested in seeing that the Family Planning Sub Centre is located at a convenient place so that the maximum number of the people of the locality may derive the greatest benefit.While it may be that they are sponsoring a public cause with the object of ensuring that the institution is located at a suitable place,it is not possible to hold that they have any legal interest whatever which can be said to have been prejudicially affect­ed by the decision taken by the Collector.Hence they cannot be regarded as persons prejudicially affected in the eye of law so as to come within the scope of the Full Bench decision of this Court,reported in,I.T. C. Pazhanimala and others v. State of Kerala and others 1968 K.L.T.652 and the observations of the Supreme Court already referred to above.