The petitioner is challenging Ext.P1 notification whereby the 3rd respondent was appointed as a member of the 4th respondent Commission. Consequently, the petitioner is seeking relief to the extent of restraining the 3rd respondent from attending the hearing scheduled on the basis of Ext.P3 public notice. The petitioner is attacking the appointment on the basis that the 3rd respondent had retired from service of the 2nd respondent Board as Chief Engineer and as per Section 85(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 he cannot be appointed as a member of the 4th respondent Commission. In support of the above contention the petitioner also relied on a decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Awasthi V. Nand Lal Jaiswal (2012 (10) scale 527). 2. Before considering the relief sought for, this court takes note of the fact that Ext.P1 notification is dated 22.11.2010 and that the 3rd respondent was acting W.P.(C). No. 16469 of 2014 -2-
as a member of the 4th respondent Commission since then. Another question to be considered is regarding locus standi of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P1. The petitioner claims that he is the convener of a standing council of trade unions, comprising recognized and unrecognized trade unions in major industries in Kerala. He is at present working as 'Quality Control Assistant' at the Exculsion Plant of HINDALCO, Eloor. According to the petitioner, Ext.P3 notice was issued with respect to revision of tariff affecting the major industrial establishments in Kerala and hence the petitioner is interested in the subject matter. This court is not at all convinced that the petitioner can establish any locus standi with respect to appointment of the 3rd respondent as member of the 4th respondent Commission. He cannot be termed as a person aggrieved with respect to such appointment. The petitioner had never claimed that he is prosecuting challenges against the appointment as a 'pro bona publico', nor the petitioner had sought for any writ of quo warranto on the basis that the 3rd respondent is not W.P.(C). No. 16469 of 2014 -3-
qualified to be appointed as a member of the 4th respondent Commission.
3. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the writ petition cannot be entertained on the question of locus standi, and also on the question of delay.
Hence the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE Pn