IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333]

TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

WRIT PETITION NO: 18372/2016

Between:

M.l.kumar Reddy ...PETITIONER

AND

The Registrar Administrative Office and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.M VIJAYA KUMAR GOUD

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

• 1.YELLA REDDY RAJANALA (SC FOR ANGRAU)
• 2.7396/RAMIDI SATHYANARAYANA
• 3.YELLA REDDY RAJANALA (SC FOR ANGRAU)

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

"….to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the election Notification vide Lr.No.003760/Election/2016 on 08.06.2016, ignoring the Rules & Regulations contemplated in the Bye Laws of the Petitioner Association, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice apart from the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 & 19 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same....."

2. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the Notification, dated 08.06.2016, which was issued for conducting general elections to Non-Teaching Employees Association with Registration No.28 of 2015. But, this Court was not inclined to grant any interim order on 14.06.2016 on the ground that the petitioner is under the mistaken impression that the notification was issued in respect of ANGRAU Nonteaching Employees Association with Registration No.6542 of 1999. When the petitioner is not even a member of the Association, he has no locus standi to question the elections that are proposed to be conducted to the Association with Registration No.28 of 2015.

3. A person must have locus standi to file a writ as being personally affected by the impugned order or invasion of his /her fundamental rights. This principle was reiterated in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra¹ and is being extracted below:

"Thus, from the above it is evident that under ordinary circumstances, a third person, having no concern with the case at hand, cannot claim to have any locus standi to raise any grievance whatsoever. However, in exceptional circumstances as referred to above, if the actual persons aggrieved, because of ignorance, illiteracy, inarticulation or poverty, are unable to approach the court, and a person, who has no personal agenda, or object, in relation to which, he can grind his own axe, approaches the court, then the court may examine the issue and in exceptional circumstances, even if his bona fides are doubted, but the issue raised by him, in the opinion of the court, requires consideration, the court may proceed suo moto, in such respect."

4. According to the doctrine of locus standi, a person who is stranger to a disputed matter cannot be allowed to interfere in the judicial proceedings through a writ petition, but, only a person whose legal right has been violated, that is the aggrieved person against whom a decision has been pronounced, is allowed to bring an action in the Court. But, in the present case, the impugned Notification dated 08.06.2016 was issued for conducting general elections to Non-Teaching Employees Association with Registration No.28 of 2015, of which the petitioner herein is not even a member, which clearly indicates that the petitioner lacks locus standi.

5. In view of the above, this Court finds no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¹ (2013) 4 SCC 465

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

_________________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

KGR