* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 2117/2015 & CM No. 3816/2015
% 4th March, 2015
SAHKARMI WELFARE ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED EMPLOYEES
OF NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR COOPERATIVE TRAINING
..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Prabhasahay Kaur, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Gogna, Advocate for
respondent no.1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. After arguments, this petition is not pressed with liberty to the
individually affected persons to file writ petitions as individuals or as a
group provided there are common questions of facts and law which arise qua
the common petitioners.
W.P.(C) No. 2117/2015 Page 1 of 4
2. Petition is allowed to be withdrawn with aforesaid liberty.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
MARCH 04, 2015
Ne
3. After the above order was passed at around 11 AM, the matter
was mentioned at the stroke of lunch, and the counsel for the petitioner
states that petitioner has instructed her not to withdraw the petition. This is
indeed a strange position, however therefore, I am passing the following
detailed order.
4. In this writ petition, the petitioner is a body/entity i.e a legal
person and not a natural person. By the writ petition, benefit is sought for
the members of the petitioner with respect to the claim of D.A. and also
interest.
5. In my opinion, the writ petition is not maintainable by a body
and which body does not get any benefits but the benefits are prayed for and
granted only to individual persons. Facts
and causes of action of each individual person have to be pleaded separately in a separate petition unless W.P.(C) No. 2117/2015 Page 2 of 4 a petition can be filed by a group of individual persons on there existing common questions both of law and facts. It is settled law that in service matters, a PIL is not permissible i.e a service matter has to be filed by a person who has locus standi and seeks reliefs. This petition effectively is barred on the same principle because petitioner as a body does not get any benefits but the benefits are sought for with respect to individuals who can surely come before this Court. Just because many petitioners find it convenient to file a case through a body does not mean that this Court should entertain such a petition inasmuch as rights are with respect to an individual and it is not the case that such an individual on account of suffering from a disability could not approach this Court and therefore effectively the PIL on his behalf is sought to be filed.
6. In service matters where vires of a statutory provision are challenged, may be a body can file a petition, but, where individuals claim individual monetary benefits as per the facts of such individuals, and facts of each individual are not necessarily identical for raising common questions of law and facts, then a body/legal entity ought not to be allowed to file a case and cases must be filed by the individuals as per their own locus. W.P.(C) No. 2117/2015 Page 3 of 4
7. In view of the above, the petitioner lacks locus standi, and therefore the petition is not maintainable and is dismissed.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J MARCH 04, 2015 Ne W.P.(C) No. 2117/2015 Page 4 of 4