Only a 'party aggrieved' can apply for certiorari under Art.226.

1. The petitioner is the owner of the site, building and equipments known as Umayal Talkies, Cannanore, to be referred to hereafter as 'Umayal Talkies', which were leased by him to the second respondent for a period of two years from December 1, 1956. Before the expiry of the term of the lease, the petitioner had issued to him a notice to quit and had not assented afterwards to his continuance in possession. After the lease, the second respondent had been exhibiting cinematograph films in Umayal Talkies, under a licence which expired on June 30, 1959 and when he made an application for a fresh licence under the provisions of the Kerala Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1958, which may be referred to hereafter as the 'Act', the

petitioner objected on the ground that his possession of Umayal Talkies was unlawful, and that he had not produced before the licensing Authority under the Act, who was the Commissioner of the Municipal Council, Cannanore, "documentary evidence to show, that he is in lawful possession" thereof, as required by R.7A of the Kerala Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1958, which may be referred to hereafter as the Rules. The Commissioner granted a licence to the second respondent for the period commencing from July 1, 1959 and ending with June 30,1960. The petitioner preferred an appeal under S.5 (7) (1) of the Act to the Municipal Council, Cannanore, which dismissed his appeal; he then moved the District Collector, Cannanore who under S.5 (8) of the Act set aside the order of the Municipal Council on the ground, that R.7A had not been complied with. The second respondent then applied to the Government of the State of Kerala, impleaded as the first respondent in this petition, under S.12 of the Act, to revise the order of the District Collector. The petitioner's complaint is, that without issuing notice to him, or hearing him, the first respondent passed an order, Ext. P-3, on November 12, 1959, setting aside the District Collector's order. This petition is to quash Ext. P3 on the ground that it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, embodied in the proviso to S.12 of the Act, which enacts that:

"no order shall be passed under this section [S. 12] without giving an opportunity to show cause to the party who may be affected by the order".

On the merits, the petitioner has reiterated his objection, that R.7A was not complied with by the second respondent,

2. A preliminary objection was taken to the competency of this petition on behalf of the respondents, that the petitioner is not a'party aggrieved' and is not therefore entitled to apply for certiorari under Art.226 of the Constitution. The petitioner's counsel maintained, that, firstly, as the landlord of Umayal Talkies, secondly, as a party to the proceeding which originated in the second respondent's application for licence and culminated in the impugned order, and thirdly, as a party 'affected' by that order within the meaning of the proviso to S.12 of the Act, the petitioner is a 'party aggrieved', and has a locus standi under Art.226: It is well settled, that only a party aggrieved can apply for certiorari. The rule has been stated thus, in II Halsburys Laws of England, Simonds Edition, page 140, Para.265:

"Although the order is not of course it will though discretionary nevertheless be granted ex debito justitiae to quash proceedings which the court has power to quash, where it is shown that the court below has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, if the application is made by aggrieved party and not merely by one of the public and if the conduct of the party applying has not been such as to disentitle him to relief and this is the case even though certiorari is taken away by statute and although there is an alternative remedy".

The Supreme Court has laid down in State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal, A.I.R. 1952 SC. 12, that the existence of a right is the foundation of the exercise of jurisdiction of the court under Art.226