Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(i) The respondent- writ petitioners neither have locus nor can complain of violation of any fundamental right by the Patna High Court LPA No.388 of 2015 dt. 25-07-2018 25 establishment of the Toll Plaza rather it is a proxy litigation led on behalf of those having business establishment in and around the Toll Plaza, constructed without obtaining no objection from the statutory authorities.

(ii) The conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge that the 2nd proviso to Rule 8(1) of „the 2008 Rules‟ is in continuity with the 1st proviso is not in tune with the legal position settled under the judgments on the scope and intent of the proviso. The 2nd proviso to Rule 8(1) of „the 2008 Rules‟ is independent of the other provisions.

Re: Issue No. (i) :- Locus- no violation of fundamental right- unclean hands- business interest etc. Patna High Court LPA No.388 of 2015 dt. 25-07-2018 28 The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the respondents- writ petitioners have no locus to complain of violation of any fundamental right by the establishment of the Toll Plaza, is too farfetched. According to the appellants, the writ petition was a proxy litigation led on behalf of the business establishment in and around the Toll Plaza which again does not undermine the cause raised by the writ petitioners. Where an action of an authority is questioned on statutory violation and which concerns the public at large, then the objection either on the vice of proxy litigation or on locus or on violation of right or on sufferance, bears no foundation because in such circumstance it is not the consequences of the action complained, which has to bear the reason for maintaining a writ petition rather it is the source of power drawn by the authority charged with such illegal discharge, which is the relevant factor.