Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vaiko, General Secretary of Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 07.11.2012 passed by the Tribunal constituted under Section 5 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The Tribunal had confirmed a Notification dated 14.05.2012 issued by the Central Government declaring the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE) an unlawful association. The petitioner sought to quash the Tribunal's order as published in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette. The respondents, including the Union of India and the State of Tamilnadu, raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of the petition on three grounds: lack of locus standi, the petition being infructuous due to successive notifications imposing the ban, and lack of territorial jurisdiction as the notification was issued by the Central Government and confirmed by the Tribunal at Delhi. The court, after hearing the petitioner in person and the counsel for the respondents, found merit in the objections. The court noted that the petitioner was not a person aggrieved by the impugned order as he was not a member of the banned association. Additionally, the impugned order had a validity of only two years and subsequent notifications had been issued, rendering the petition infructuous. The court also held that the appropriate forum for challenging the notification would be the Delhi High Court. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Locus Standi - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Petitioner, not being a member of the banned association, lacks locus standi to challenge the ban under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court held that the petitioner is not a person aggrieved by the impugned order confirming the ban on LTTE (Paras 3-5). B) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Ban Notification - Infructuous Petition - Challenge to Tribunal order confirming ban notification becomes infructuous when subsequent notifications have been issued imposing a fresh ban - The court held that the impugned order had a validity of only two years and successive notifications render the petition infructuous (Paras 4-5). C) Constitutional Law - Territorial Jurisdiction - Writ Petition - Challenge to Central Government notification confirmed by Tribunal at Delhi cannot be entertained by Madras High Court - The court held that the appropriate forum is the Delhi High Court (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order confirming the ban on LTTE is maintainable on grounds of locus standi, being infructuous due to successive notifications, and lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
Law Points
- Locus standi
- maintainability of writ petition
- infructuous petition
- territorial jurisdiction
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act
- 1967
