JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner’s complaint/representation dated 30.11.2012.)

1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner’s complaint/representation dated 30.11.2012.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the third respondent Company has been issued with license under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956. The learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the petitioner is an agriculturist and President of the Turmeric Farmers Association of India. Referring to the memorandum of Association of the third respondent company, the petitioner raised several allegations against the third respondent Company for certain violations and the illegalities. Setting out all the allegations, the petitioner submitted a complaint to the second respondent on 30.11.2012. Since no action has been taken by the second respondent, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent questioned the entertainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner is a third party and not a shareholder of the third respondent company. Thu, he has no locus standi to file the present writ petition and his complaint need not be considered at all.

4. Admittedly, the petitioner is not the shareholder of the third respondent Company. He is the President of Turmeric Farmers Association of India and raised certain allegations against the activities of the third respondent company.

5. Question arises, whether a third person can submit a complaint against the Company, which is registered under the Companies Act in respect of certain allegations, violations, irregularities or illegalities.

6. In normal circumstances, the shareholders, who have invested their money in the Company, is empowered to file complaints and file writ petitions. As far as the third parties are concerned, no doubt, they can bring to the notice of the competent authorities about certain allegations or illegalities. However, enforcement of certain rights would not arise in such circumstances, but they can be considered as Informers for the purpose of looking into the complaint.

7. Thus, two aspects are to be considered. A right vested, which is enforceable and an information provided, warranting action by the authorities. The petitioner, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the third respondent, is not a shareholder. Thus, he has no right to interfere with the affairs of the third respondent company. However, he can be considered as an Informer regarding certain allegations, when the Company is registered under the Companies Act and the affairs of the Companies are to be inspected or looked into by the competent authorities.

8. For example, a Company involving in certain irregularities or illegalities, whether affecting or not affecting the public, may brought to the notice of the authorities for appropriate inspection or actions. It is for the authorities to take a decision in this regard and proceed further in accordance with law. This being the principles to be adopted, the direction as such sought for need not be considered at this point of time, in view of the fact that the petitioner may not have any right to enforce something which is not existing. However, the information’s provided by the petitioner may be looked into by the competent authorities in the interest of persons, who all are connected with the third respondent Company. For all purposes, the petitioner is to be treated only an Informer and therefore, it is for the authorities to look into the complaint and take appropriate action, if necessary in accordance with law.

9. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.