JUDGMENT

S.MANIKUMAR, C.J.

Kalpuzha Samrakshana Samithy represented by its Convenor has sought for the following reliefs:

i) to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction to the first respondent to consider Exhibit P11 representation and take necessary steps to complete projects names “Cage Farming” and “Fish Multiplication Centre” at Ullanam in Parapanangadi Municipality in Malappuram District, sanctioned as per Exhibit P1 notification.

ii) to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction to the 12th respondent to conduct and effective enquiry into the case in the file No.P301/16/MPM.

2. On the averments, according to Mr.Antony Loyed.C.J., learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner is a Samithy formed by local people for raising their grievances before the authorities. The projects named “Cage Farming” and “Fish Multiplication Centre” at Ullanam in Parapanangadi Municipality in Malappuram District is a long pending dream of local people. Hence, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the first respondent/State of Kerala to take steps to complete the project by considering Ext.P11 representation of the petitioner.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

4. Admittedly, instant writ petition, though styled as a Public Interest Litigation, is filed by an unregistered body - “Kalpuzha Samrakshana Samithy”. Therefore, without going into the merits, maintainability of a public interest litigation by an unregistered body has to be considered. There are umpteen number of decisions of various High Courts with respect to the maintainability of public interest litigations filed by an unregistered Association, which are reproduced hereunder for ready reference: (i) In The North Arcot District Pawn Brokers' Association and Ors. v. The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue and Insurance) and Ors. reported in (1975) 1 MLJ 290, the High court of Madras opined as follows:

“13............ It is well established that only a person whose rights are alleged to have been threatened or transgressed or on whom obligations are imposed by any statute can approach this Court invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not the case of any these Associations that the Association as such is carrying on business of pawnbroker and therefore the said Association as such has been called upon to discharge any obligation or perform any duty imposed by the Gold Control Act. Therefore, the said Associations cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That is the view taken by Ramaprasada Rao, J., in his judgment dated 3rd April, 1973 in The Polur Town Panchayat Taxpayers Association v. The Polur Town Panchayat and Ors. W.P. No. 2197 of 1972 dated 3rd April, 1973. in respect of a writ petition filed by the Polur Town Panchayat Tax Payers' Association challenging the levy of tax made by the Panchayat. The learned Judge pointed out;

The petitioner is admittedly a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. Under Section 6 every society no doubt can sue or be sued in its name and the provisions of the Act make the society a legal entity by itself. It has a separate existence in the eye of law and can act in its own name and in the manner prescribed by the Act. It therefore, follows that the petitioner association is an independent legal person.

If such an independent legal person approaches this Court exercising extraordinary jurisdiction and demands an issue of rule in the nature of certiorari, then it should be in a position to establish beyond doubt that its legal right is affected or by the enforcement of the challenged or impugned order, the petitioner would be aggrieved.

In holding that the association as such could not file a writ petition, the learned Judge followed an earlier decision of a Bench of this Court in Authoor Vivasaya Abhivirdhi Sangam and Ors. v. S