G MALAKONDA REDDY Vs. ANDHRA BANK OFFICER UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the Court by the second respondent in the Writ Petition No.15363 of 1996 and fourth respondent in Writ Petition No. 11873 of 1996, declaration in whose favour by the Civil Court and consequent correction of the entry in the Service Book of the Andhra Bank in respect of his Date of Birth is nullified by the impugned judgment in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has raised two important questions:

(2.) It is well settled that for a writ, in the nature of Certiorari, in particular, and ordinarily for all other writs, orders or directions of the Court which exercises the plenary power, a person whose right or interest is inflicted or injured by the impugned action alone has the locus standi. Exception is made, however, in litigations which are generally found to espouse a common cause of the public or of a class of person or persons with whom the petitioner or petitioners share interest in common, and in such cases of public interest, persons who otherwise cannot be seen as aggrieved by the impugned order are accepted as petitioners, their petitions are entertained and orders in respect of such common causes are made pro bono publico. It would be difficult to think how for the petitioner-Union or the Association any such cause is available with respect to the correction in the Date of Birth of the respondent-Appellant herein. None the less, the learned single Judge has held that the petitioner-Association/Union is entitled to file the writ petition questioning alternation of Date of Birth of the respondent-Appellant, both on the ground that promotional avenues of its members are affected and also on the ground that the Union has come forward to espouse a public wrong and fight for its rectification. In grey areas in particular where the action is brought by a busy body before the Court or a person who has really the public interest in his heart, Courts do take notice of the fact whether the petition is guided by any motive or personal gain or otherwise oblique consideration; whether petitioner has acted bona fide and has sufficient interest in maintaining the action for judicial redress of a public injury and decide upon relaxing the rule of locus standi. Learned single Judge has chosen to do so and is guided mainly by the view taken by the Supreme Court in Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, .

(3.) There is no manner of doubt, however, that the two petitioners who have claimed to be Associations of individuals are not recognised as a legal entity or a juristic person except in so far as individual interest of the members of the two Associations/Unions are concerned. They are neither registered as a Society under any enactment or a Statute, nor are recognised as such by any competent authority under any Statute. Since, however, learned single Judge has observed that individuals who have constituted the Employees's Union have complained of adverse effect upon their promotional avenues on account of such alteration in the Date of Birth, which according to them, has been done illegally, we see no ground to hold that because the two writ petitioners - Respondents have not satisfied the norm of a juristic person and thus of a legal entity in the capacity of Association of individuals, they do not have any locus standi.