9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to the legality of an order under the Mysore Race Course Licensing Act, 1952. Detailed Analysis: 1. Challenge to the Order: The petitioner sought various reliefs through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the legality of Order No. FD 5- CRC 86, Bangalore, dated November 25, 1986. The order imposed additional conditions on licenses granted to the Bangalore Turf Club. The petitioner specifically objected to the appointment of a Chief Executive Officer. Subsequently, the order was modified through another order dated August 18, 1987, by deleting the reference to the Chief Executive Officer, thereby addressing the petitioner's main grievance. 2. Preliminary Objection: The Advocate-General raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the petitioner, a member of the Bangalore Turf Club Ltd., lacked standing to challenge the order. The club, being a registered company, was the entity affected by the order, and since the club itself did not challenge the order, the petitioner's personal interests were not directly impacted. The petitioner's right as a member to elect the managing committee did not confer standing to challenge the order affecting the club's managerial rights. 3. Legal Precedent and Analysis: The Advocate-General relied on a Supreme Court decision in Daman Singh v. State of Punjab to support the argument that a member of an entity like a cooperative society loses individuality concerning the entity's rights and must act through the entity. Applying this principle, the petitioner, as a member of the club, could not maintain the petition challenging the order affecting the club's managerial rights. The court upheld the preliminary objection, emphasizing that the petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge the order. 4. Conclusion: Given the lack of standing, the court dismissed the writ petition without delving into the other contentions raised. The judgment highlights the legal principle that a member of an entity like a club must act through the entity and cannot independently challenge actions affecting the entity's rights. The decision underscores the importance of locus standi in judicial proceedings and the application of legal precedents to determine standing in such cases.
|
