JUDGMENT :

The petitioner is an Association of small financiers and unincorporated bodies registered under the Kerala Money Lenders Act (‘the Act’ for short). The members of the petitioner are issued with licence under the Act which is to be renewed from time to time. Although renewal applications were submitted by many of the members, the authorities refused to renew their license in view of Ext.P1 communication of the Additional Commissioner, State Goods and Services, Tax Department. Ext.P1 refers to the Reserve Bank of India's intimation that it had noticed that some entities registered under the Kerala Money Lenders Act are using the words ‘bankers’ as part of their name and are engaging in acceptance of public deposits, which is a prohibited activity insofar as money lenders registered under the Act are concerned. Further, the use of the words ‘bank, banker, 'banking' and 'banking company' and is prohibited by Section 7 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Based on the RBI instruction, the authorities under the Money Lenders Act are directed that not grant fresh registration or renew existing registration without the applicants dropping the word ‘banker/s’ from the name. Ext.P1 also requires the authorities to report about the prevailing practice, if any, of using the words ‘bank', 'banker', 'banking' and 'banking company’ by any company/firm/individual/group of individuals, other than the entities falling under the definition of 'banking company' under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The petitioner has taken up the issue with the first respondent as per Ext.P2 representation. As the representation did not yield the decided result, this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs;

“a) Declare that the members of the petitioner's Association are entitled for renewal of their existing licenses without complying the requirements pointed out in Ext.P1 and without insisting on the deletion of the word 'bank' or 'bankers' from the business name so far as the firm, individual and group of individuals are concerned;

b) issue such further writs, orders or directions which this Hon'ble Court may deem it fit to grant in view of the facts and circumstances of the above case.”

2. Adv. K.P.Sreekumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the refusal to renew the licence of members of the petitioner’s association is ex facie illegal. It is contended that, Section 4(3) of the Act, which enumerates the reasons for refusing grant/renewal of registration, does not mention any of the reasons stated in Ext.P1. It is pointed out that the issue is covered by Ext.P3 judgment. Therein, a similar challenge raised by the North-Kerala Private Bankers' Association and two of its members was upheld and the licencing authority directed to dispose of the applications for licence/renewal in accordance with the provisions of law governing the same, without insisting upon deletion of the word ‘banker or bankers’ from the business name. It is contended that in the light of the declaration of law in Ext.P3 judgment, the first respondent cannot require the members of the Association to carry out the deletion mentioned in Ext.P1 as a condition for renewal of licence.

3. Adv.Resmitha R.Chandran, learned Government Pleader raised preliminary objection as to maintainability of the writ petition on two grounds;

(i) The writ petition filed by an Association espousing the individual grievance of its members cannot be entertained and even if entertained, the same can only be on the petitioner remitting court fee for each individual member. In elaboration of this objection, it is submitted that Rule 147A of the High Court Rules read along with Schedule II Article 11 (1)(iii) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1959, require court fee to be paid Rs.100 for each individual member. It is also mandatory for the petitioner Association to produce the list of members and the authorisation given by the members for filing the writ petit