ORDER
1. Rule nisi. Learned Government Pleader for Fisheries took notice on behalf of the respondents. The Writ Petition was heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for both the parties.
2. The Court can take notice of the feet that large number of writ petitions are filed in this Court seeking directions to the public authorities to consider and dispose of extra-legal letters, petitions, representations within time-frame. This case is one of such cases where such a request is made for a direction to the respondents to consider an extra-legal representation. The question which falls for consideration is whether such requests can be granted by this Court by virtue of the power conferred upon it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Although Article 226 of the Constitution of India speaks about the power of this Court to issue not only prerogative writs, but also orders or writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose, it is well settled that Writs or Orders can be issued only for the enforcement of fundamental rights or other rights. The Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal, 1952 SCR 28, Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of West Bengal, and in Fertilizer Corporation Kamagar Union (Regd.) Sindri and others v. Union of India and others, MR. 1981 SC 344 while interpreting the phrase “any other purpose” occurring in Article 226 held that “any other purpose”, in short, means the “enforcement of any legal right” and the “performance of any legal duty”. A right to be considered is also a legal right which can be enforced under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, if the Court finds that a representation or a letter or a correspondence or a petition filed before a public authority is extra-legal, no direction can be issued to such public authority to consider and dispose of such representation or petition or correspondence under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court can also take notice of the feet that in some cases where directions were issued to consider and
dispose of extra-legal representations, petitions, correspondence or letters to the public authorities within a time-frame, and when those public authorities could not carry out the directions within the stipulated time, they are hauled up in the contempt cases. In a Social Welfare State, it is trite to state that the public authorities receive thousands of representations, applications, petitions which are extra-legal in nature seeking favours, benefits and expressing grievances, and seeking intervention and support of the State and State authorities. If the Court were to issue directions in all such cases to the public authorities to consider and dispose of the petitions, applications which are extra-legal in nature, thereby I mean, not made or submitted under any provision of law obligating the authorities to consider; the authorities may not find time to discharge their essential duties and functions entrusted to them by. law, and the efficacy of administration will suffer.
3. In the premise of the aforementioned principles, let me now refer to the facts of this case. The petitioner is Water Users’ Association, Peddacheruvu in Maddulaparva village. In its representation dated 7-8-1998 submitted to the Assistant Director, Fisheries Department, Machilipatnam, it is stated that the members of the petitioners’ association are the ‘ayacutdars’ of Peddacheruvu in Maddulaparva village, and due to the illegal acts of the office-bearers of Maddulaparva Fishermen Cooperative Society, they are feeing lot of difficulties in repairing the canals. Admittedly, this representation is not made under any provision of law. In other words, the representation is extra-legal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner was not able to trace the duty cast on the Assistant Director to consider the representation and take action thereon with reference to any law, statute or otherwise. The petitioners are not the members of Maddulaparva Fishermen Cooperative Society. But, curiously they have made a request to dissolve the Maddulaparva Fishermen Cooperative Society. Therefore the
petitioner have no locus standi to seek dissolution of the Maddulaparva Fishermen Cooperative Society. Due to the acts of the office-bearers of the Fishermen Cooperative Society, if the members of the petitioner Association are feeing difficulties in repairing the canals, they can seek appropriate injunctive reliefs from the competent Civil Court. The Assistant Director, Fisheries Department, is under no legal obligation to consider the representation of the petitioner and he has no authority to grant the reliefs sought in the representation. The petitioner too has no right or locus standi to seek dissolution of the Committee of management of the Fishermen Cooperative Society. The Court cannot issue futile Writs, or Writs to disobey the law. The petitioner has failed to establish that it has a right to be considered, and therefore its representation is not entitled to be considered by the Assistant Director of Fisheries in law. It is true that modem Welfare State and its authorities may consider genuine grievances of citizens which are extra-legal in nature as a principle of good governance in a field not occupied by law in exercise of the executive discretion. That does not enable the Court to compel them to consider all extra-legal grievances of the citizens because the question of enforcing any legal right does not arise.
4. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to cost.