Locus standi is essential for filing a writ petition; lack thereof leads to dismissal.

JUDGMENT Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

The present intra-court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, assails the judgment dated 29.03.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 432 of 2021, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed as not maintainable.

2. The appellant filed the writ petition praying for the following reliefs:

“a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to withdraw the deviations/amendments made to Ext-P1 model Bye law, which is approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 2^nd respondent to ensure that all the units under the 2^nd respondent have to amend the Byelaw in tune with Ext-P1 model Bye law.

c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 2^nd & 3^rd respondents not to take any action on the strength of the clauses deviating from the clauses in Ext-P1 model Bye law, which is approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

d) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction invalidating the decisions taken by the 2^nd respondent based on the deviations/amendments made to Ext-P1-model Bye law, which is approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

e) Issue a writ of mandamus or any one appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 2^nd respondent not to conduct any election to the units of the 2^nd respondent association, or to the 2^nd respondent association, with members who are disqualified as per the terms of Ext-

P1 Byelaw.

f) Direct the Registrar of the High Court to initiate criminal proceedings against the 3rd and 4th respondent for filing false affidavit before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and obtaining orders.

g) Grant such other relief deemed fit to this Hon'ble Court.”

3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the locus standi ground that the appellant had no to maintain it, as he is neither a member of any cricket association nor does he have any personal cause to seek an amendment to the model bye-laws. It was noted that the respondent, the Kerala Cricket Association, had already submitted a compliance report vide communication dated 17.09.2018, and no objection existed in that regard.

3.1 The learned Single Judge further observed that although the Supreme Court, by order dated 14.03.2019, had granted liberty to the locus appellant to seek remedies in accordance with law, the issue of standi had never been considered by the Supreme Court. Therefore, nothing precluded the learned Single Judge from examining the locus standi question of .

3.2 Accordingly, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is a former Ranji Trophy cricketer and continues to remain actively involved in the game of cricket. He has also previously served in various capacities, including as an umpire and coach. It is further submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is arbitrary, improper, and illegal, and is therefore liable to be set aside.

4.1 According to the appellant, the failure to consider the writ petition on its merits amounts to disobedience of the orders passed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, it is urged, that the matter deserves reconsideration in accordance with law. Hence, this writ appeal.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that, on a perusal of the pleadings in the writ petition, it is evident that the petition is neither a Public Interest Litigation nor one involving the infringement of any personal rights of the appellant. It is contended that the appellant cannot maintain the wr