AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Sathasivam, J.—Petitioner has approached this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondents 1 and 3 to receive
application submitted by one Mabel and countersigned by 4th Respondent on 23-4-2000 and direct them to act in accordance with the Indian
Christian Act and the Constitution of the C.S.I., Kanyakumari.
According to the Petitioner, he is a member of the Church of Arul Kundu, the said Church falls within the jurisdiction of Kanyakumari C.S.I.
Diocese. In the present case the Petitioner and the other Church members are aggrieved on account of the fact the first Respondent and the 2nd
Respondent are at loggerheads and the Church is unable to function effectively as per the Constitution as well as the provisions of the Christian
marriage laws. It is also his grievance that though an application is made for solemnizing a marriage, the Respondents 1 to 3 failed in their duty.
Because of the dispute between the first Respondent and the 4th Respondent though the application was forwarded on 23-4-2000, the same had
not been scrutinized. The fee has also been paid on 12-5-2000. When contacted as to why permission has not been granted, the pastor District
Min-ister/2nd Respondent had informed the said Mabel, a relative of the Petitioner that there is a direction from the first Respondent not to
entertain any application signed by the third Respondent and any dispute interse between the parties cannot affect the rights of law abiding citizens
who are desirous of solemnizing the marriage in accordance with the Constitution of the Church as per the Christian Marriage Act. Miss Mabel
had printed her invitation card and had also distributed it unaware of dispute between the 4th and 1st Respondents. There is no reason for her to
suffer on account of the fault of the second Respondent in not sanctioning the reading of the form in the Church service; accordingly he has filed the
present writ petition for appropriate direction.
On behalf of Respondents 1 to 3, first Respondent has filed a counter affidavit. Even at the outset, it is stated that the Petitioner has no right or
authority or power to file the present writ petition for and on behalf of the said Mabel; hence the Petitioner has no locus standi to file the writ
petition. There is no explanation or evidence as to why the said Mabel has not filed a writ petition and as to how the Petitioner has been permitted
to file the present writ petition. It is also stated that the 4th Respondent has filed O.S. No. 20/2000 on the file of the District Munsif, Kuzhithurai
against the Bishop regarding his suspension. Further, the Respondents 1 to 3 are doing spiritual coupled with secular work. Their performance
cannot be deemed to be based on statutory duty. The Diocese is an unregistered body. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. Even
otherwise, the matter in dispute is purely a question of disputed fact and the same cannot be agitated in a writ jurisdiction.
Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as Respondents.
Though Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, after taking me through certain factual aspects from paragraphs 3, 7, 8, 10, 12
and 13 of the affidavit, contended that the present inaction on the part of Respondents 1 to 3 are contrary to the Indian Christian Marriage Act,
1872, after going through the averments and in the light of the objection taken in the counter affidavit of the Respondents 1 to 3,1 am of the view
that the matter in dispute is purely a question of disputed facts. It is settled law that a writ cannot be filed when there is disputed question of fact is
involved; accordingly I hold that the writ remedy is not a proper remedy for the Petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Apart from the above aspect, as rightly contended by Mr. P. Peppin Fernando, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner D. Suresh Kumar is not
maintainable, since he has no right or authority or power to file the present writ for and on be half of Mabel. No document is produced to prove
that the Petitioner is authorized to file the present writ petition on her behalf; accordingly I hold that the Petitioner has no locus standi to file the writ
petition. It is also clear that when Mabel herself has not come forward to approach this Court, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner is not
maintainable in law and on facts. As rightly pointed out, there is no averment as to why Mable has not filed a writ petition or as to how the
Petitioner has been permitted to file this writ. No Government or quasi Government organization is involved in this case. Though in certain
circumstances this Court can issue writ against private parties, as rightly pointed out, in the absence of any specific authorization by the said Mabel
or specific averment in the affidavit, the Petitioner who is calling himself as a member of the Church of Arulkundu has no locus standi to seek any
relief against these Respondents.
It is settled law that the legal right that can be enforced under Article 226 like Article 32 of the Constitution of India, must ordinarily be the right
of the Petitioner himself who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief. The right that can be enforced under Article
226 also shall ordinarily be the personal or individual right of the Petitioner himself, though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or
quo warranto this rule may have to be relaxed or modified. The Petitioner must have a legal right to enforce the performance of the alleged duty. It
is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as
well as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a
person is denied a legal right by some one who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something. An applicant who seeks for a
writ of mandamus which is a high prerogative writ should have a legal right to the performance of a nondiscretionary legal duty by the person
against whom the writ is sought. Even so, the right must be public right and the duty to be enforced must be of a public nature. An element of
compulsion to perform the legal duty should be apparent on the record. The purpose of the writ is to compel action and not to undo what has been
done. In all cases in which issuance of the writ is requested for, there should be a statutory duty on the part of the other party to be performed
(vide (1) The Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. Vs. The State of West Bengal and Others, ; Rai Shivendra Bahadur Vs. The Governing
Body of the Nalanda College, (3) Mani Subrat Jain and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, and (4) G.T. Venkatasamy Reddi Vs. State of
Tamil Nadu and Another, .
In the light of what is stated above, I am satisfied that the Petitioner has no locus standi to seek a relief as claimed in this writ petition;
accordingly the same is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) payable to the first Respondent. W.M.P. No. 12415 of
2000 is also dismissed.