The main legal point established is that petitioners had sufficient locus standi to challenge the final list under the Kerala Education Rules, and the Government's order was in excess of jurisdiction as it did not adhere to the grounds for review specified in the rules.

1. The Director of Public Instruction published a "preliminary list" of areas where new High Schools were proposed to be opened during the year 1982-83: and Pallipurathussery (Vaikom) was one of the areas/ localities specified. The proposal was to sanction the opening of a Girls' High School. The Manager of a Girls' High School at Vaikom objected, and after considering all objections, Government decided to drop the proposal. In the "final list" approved by the Government, therefore, Pallipurathussery did not find a place. Aggrieved by this decision, the Manager of a Convent filed a petition for reviewing the final list. Government heard the matter and passed orders directing inclusion of the area in the final list. The convenors of a Pourasamithi at Pallipurathussery thereupon filed OP. No. 8873/83 challenging the said order, and a learned judge dismissed the OP. on the ground that the petitioners had no real interest in the matter, that they had suffered no injury and that having failed to object to the preliminary list at the initial stage, they were not entitled to question the final list as reviewed, at a later stage. This is what the learned judge said:

"The Paura Samithi is not running any school in the locality or any whereelse, nor had it objected to Ext. P2 preliminary list which provided for a Girls High School at Vaikom Pallippurathussery. The inclusion of the said area in the final list as per Ext. P4 order of Government cannot therefore be objected to by the petitioners or the Paura Samithi which they purport to represent. The Supreme Court in the decision in Mohamad Ibrahim & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others (AIR. 1980. SC. 517) has held that a person who had not objected to the grant of a no objection certificate at the appropriate stage is precluded from objecting to the grant of a cinema licence at a later stage. The same principle should apply to the facts of the present case. T do not also see how the petitioners are aggrieved by the establishment of a Girls' High School in the locality. It cannot be denied that the establishment of a High School is for the benefit of the locality and the objection by the Paura Samithi does not appear to be bona fide. The Paura Samithi is not shown to have suffered any injury for the reason of the establishment of a High School for Girls in the locality."

2.This Writ Appeal, by the Paura Samithi convenors, is directed against the aforesaid judgment.

3. No question of locus standi in the matter of seeking relief under Art.226 of the Constitution had arisen in Mohd. Ibrahim Khan's case (AIR. 1980 SC. 517), relied on by the learned Judge. The case had arisen under the Madhya Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952 and the rules framed thereunder, and the facts were these. One Prem Narayan applied for a cinema licence, in December, 1975. There were three distinct stages in the licensing procedure under the Act and the rules:

(i) the stage of granting a no-objection certificate to the site or the location;

(ii) the stage of licensing the building erected at the site; and (iii) the stage of granting licence for exhibition of films.

After considering Prem Narayan's application, no-objection certificate was granted on 10th February, 1976 for a period of six months. It appears that licence for exhibition of films was also granted and that the same was renewed up to 30th September, 1976. When application for another renewal was filed, some of the residents of the locality objected on the ground that there was a mosque, a madrassa and a temple in the vicinity. The Licensing Authority upheld this objection and rejected the application, but on appeal, the State Government reversed the decision, without hearing the objectors. And the question was whether the State Government could have done so. The Supreme Court held that persons who had not objected to the location of the site at the first stage of granting no-objection certificate, had no right to object at the subsequen