Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.23 seconds)The Insecticides Act, 1968
Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 3 in The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
The Meghalaya Co-operative Societies Act
Section 7 in The Societies Registration Act, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Goa Judicial Officers' Association vs The State Of Goa And Ors. on 20 June, 1995
13. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has drawn our attention to the
reply affidavit filed on behalf of the State and the need which was felt by the
Government of India to exercise legislative and executive powers in framing
the impugned order. Ms. Vyas has also placed reliance on the decision of
Panaji Bench of this Court in the case of The Goa Judicial Officers' Association
vs. The State of Goa & Ors. 1. She contends that the petitioner, which is an
association of manufacturers, cannot be a person aggrieved so as to maintain a
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is her contention that as an
association, the petitioner cannot be aggrieved by the implications which are
brought about by the order which would require any compliance by the
association. The relevant observations as made by the Division Bench in the
said judgment reads thus:
Director General Ordnance Factories ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Director ... on 1 February, 1968
905.WP12417_2022.DOC
226 for and on behalf of its members. He has cited several decisions
of different High Courts: Madhav Janardan v. Shrinivas Narayan
Naik and another, A.I.R. 1962 Mysore 26, (Director General
Ordinance Factories Employees' Association v. Union of India and
Director General Ordinance Factories, AIR 1969 Cal.
Satyavart Sidhantalankar vs The Arya Samaj on 8 November, 1945
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri vs The Union Of India And Others on 4 December, 1950
516 and Chanranjit Lal Chowdhury v. The Union of India and
others, AIR 1951 SC 41. We find considerable force in his
arguments. A juristic person can maintain an action only when it is
aggrieved or when its rights are infringed or violated by the action of
an Authority. Here the grievance highlighted is that of the members
and that grievance is that by the impugned Rules, the promotional
avenues available to members of the petitioner's Association under
the existing Rules have been taken away and, therefore, their chances
of promotion have been in jeopardy. As we have already seen, that
chance of promotion is not a right at all and, therefore, the members
of the Association cannot have a legal right to maintain an
application under Article 226 of the Constitution. Apart from that,
the petitioner, as an Association of the Judicial Officers, cannot
identify itself with the grievances of its members. The grievances of
the members and the Association are distinct. This elementary
principle has been stated by Salmond in 'Salmond on Jurisprudence',
12th Edition, at page 67, which reads thus: