DEVASSY Vs. ASST REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALLEGING that he is a delegate of a member Society of the 2nd respondent Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) the petitioner has moved this court for a writ of certiorari to quash Ex-P3 order passed by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) who is the returning officer for election of the Board of Directors of the Bank by which the petitioner's objection to the list of voters published as per R. 35 of the co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter called the Rules) has been overruled. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus for directing the 1st respondent to prepare and publish a list of voters for the purpose of election of the Board of Directors of the Bank as required by R. 35 (3) (b) of the Rules. The petitioner's case is as follows:

(2.) AS per Byelaw 21 of the Bank the Board of Directors shall call before the end of June every year an annual meeting of the General body of the Bank consisting of representatives of A Class members and such representatives of B Class members who may be serving on the Board of Directors at which meeting the election of the members to the Board of Directors if a new board is to take charge in the following year is to be conducted. Byelaw 11 provides that every co-operative society working within the area of operation of the Bank and the Kerala State Co-operative Bank shall be eligible for admission as member. Under Byelaw 21 the society shall hold general body atleast once in a year. It is incumbent on the Board of Directors of the society as per Byelaw 20 to maintain a list of members on the rolls of the Bank who are qualified to vote at general body meetings of the Bank and shall bring such list upto-date within a fortnight before each meeting of the General Body.

(3.) IN regard to the first contention as to whether the petitioner has locus standi to file this petition it might be stated here that the petitioner's objection Ext. P2 has been dismissed by the Returning Officer not on the ground that he has no right to raise such objection; the impugned order proceeds on the basis that the petitioner can raise such objections. IN the circumstances it is difficult for me to hold that the petitioner has no locus standi as such in the matter. IN any view of the matter it is not disputed that he is member of a Member Society of the Bank. The question whether he is a delegate representing the Member Society cannot be resolved here as disputed issues of facts will have to be resolved in deciding the same; it may not be proper for this court under Art. 226 to go into that question. Until recently there was a widespread impression that locus standi was confined to persons with a direct interest in the subject-matter of the impugned order. Though no doubt it is true as Lord Denning observed in R. v. Paddington Valuation officer, ex. p. Peachey property Corpn. Ltd. ( (1966) I Q B. 380 at 401) that the court "would not listen, of course, to a mere busybody who was interfering in things which did not concern him" certiorari being discretionary remedy, the discretion of the court extends to permitting an application to be made by any member of the public who might have some interests in the matter. Recent cases would indicate that the word 'person aggrieved' has been used to take in from within a wide field. As Professor De smith observes in his Book on Judicial Review of Administrative Action pages 431-432: "it is surely more satisfactory for the courts to adopt a flexible attitude, showing a willingness to entertain applications by any person claiming to have a direct and substantial grievance, than for them to pay lip-service, on the one hand, to the idea that any member of the public may apply, end on the other hand to confine locus standi in practice to persons whose vested legal rights have been impaired. "