Back
1989 Supreme(Ker) 151
Judges : SREEDHARAN
Pathiyoor Karshaka Sangham - Appellant
Versus
Dy.S.P.Kayamkulam - Respondent
Case No : O.P. No. 3356, 3357 of 1989
Decided On : 04/07/1989
Advocates Appeared :
M.N. Sukumaran Nayar; P.S. Krishna Pillai; For Petitioners
Unregistered associations have the right to seek reliefs in courts of law through collective proceedings, preventing expensive multiplicity of litigation.
Headnote:
Right to Seek Relief - Unregistered Associations - The court recognized the right of unregistered associations to seek reliefs in courts of law through collective proceedings, preventing expensive multiplicity of litigation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, unregistered societies, sought protection from traditional laborers who objected to the use of tractors for ploughing their lands. They wanted to organize collective cultivation of their lands on a cooperative basis.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the unregistered organizations were entitled to seek relief collectively, as individual members could not agitate their causes before the court. The petitions were deemed maintainable, and the office was directed to number and send them for admission.
Issues: The refusal to number the petitions on the ground that they were filed on behalf of unregistered societies, the right of unorganized associations to seek reliefs in courts of law, and the maintainability of petitions filed by unregistered organizations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court recognized the right of unregistered associations to seek reliefs in courts of law through collective proceedings, preventing expensive multiplicity of litigation. It held that individual members could not agitate their causes before the court, and only their collective body could protect their interest.
Final Decision: The office was directed to number the petitions treating them as properly filed and send them up for admission.
1. The office refused to number these petitions on the ground that the petitions are filed on behalf of un¬registered societies or sanghams and that all the members constituting the sangham must eo nomine figure as petitioners on payment of court fee.
2. One of the petitions is filed by Pathiyoor Karshaka Sangham represented by its President, R.Madhusoodoanan Pillai. As per the averments in the petition, the sangham is having a total strength of 80 members of small scale agriculturists. Out of them 63 own and cultivate less than one acre of land each. The remaining 17 members are cultivating only a few cents of land each. The total extent of land held by them is 55 acres. They decided to pool their resources for collective cultivation of their lands on a co-operative basis. When they wanted to use tractors for ploughing their lands, the traditional labourers of the locality objected to it stating that their implements, bullocks and buffaloes must be made use of for ploughing the areas. So, they want protection from them. In the second petition the petitioner is one B.G. Vasudevan, Convenor of Kochuputhankary Padasekhara Committee. That committee is stated to be one constituted under the Kerala Irrigation Works (Execution By Joint Labour) Act, 1967. The works in the Padasekharam was being conducted in accordance with the recommendations evidenced by Ext.P1. When the Padasekhara Committee wanted to have the paddy fields ploughed by tractors, the agricultural workers headed by respondents 4 and 5 obstructed to the same. They also seek protection from the workers headed by respondents 4 and 5.
3. In the first petition, owners of the properties having less than one acre took a decision to organise collective cultivation of their lands on co-operative basis. The lands held by each member of the sangham is so small that no tractor can be put to use. Only if all the lands belonging to them are taken as a compact area can tractors be utilised for ploughing it. So, each member may not be entitled to seek help from police to have their small bits of land ploughed with tractor. Only when those plots are pooled together can a tractor be put to use.
4. Same is the position in the case of the petitioner in the second case. As per provisions of the Kerala Irrigation Works (Execution by Joint Labour) Act, 1967, only the work that is agreed to by the majority of the proprietors can be got executed. The works suggested by individual owners are not to be executed. So the majority represented by the Padasekhara Committee alone can get the work executed.
5. 'Class actions' and 'representative proceedings' are recognised by courts in India. The courts have to strive to prevent expensive multiplicity of litigation. The right of unorganised associations to seek reliefs in Courts of Law is recognised by the Supreme Court in Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) vs. Union of India (AIR 1981 SC 298). V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., stated the law in the following terms:
"A technical point is taken in the counter-affidavit that the Ist petitioner is an unrecognised association and that, therefore, the petition to that extent, is not sustainable. It has to be overruled. Whether the petitioners belong to a recognised union or not, the fact remains that a large body of persons with a common grievance exists and they have approached this court under Art.32.Our current processual jurisprudence is not of individualistic Anglo-Indian mould. It is broad-based and people-oriented, and envisions access to justice through'class actions', public interest litigation, and 'representative proceedings'. Indeed, little Indians in large numbers seeking remedies in courts through collective proceedings, instead of being driven to an expensive plurality of litigations, is an affirmation of participative justice in our democracy. We have no hesitation in holding that the narrow concept of 'cause of action' and 'person aggrieved' and individual litigation is becoming
