Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the Secretary of an association stated to be representing the tax-payers of the Edathua Panchayat. The complaint of the petitioner is that Ext.Pl, which is, a demand notice issued under S.74 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960 by the first respondent, is invalid for the reason, that there was no levy of profession tax in terms of S.69 of the Act. The procedure prescribed in R.10 of the Profession Tax Rules, 1963 and other relevant rules had not been followed before issuing Ext.P1. No notice had been issued to the assessee. 2. Counsel for the first respondent admits that Ext.P1, which is a demand notice under S.74, was not preceded by notice under R.10. Notice had been issued to the employer of the assessee under R.15, but no notice was given to the assessee. Counsel further submits that, in any view, the petitioner has no locus standi to agitate the questions raised in this Original Petition on behalf of the assessees who are not parties here. 3. S.69 reads: "69. Profession tax.- (1) The profession tax shall, subject to such rules as may be prescribed be levied every half year in every Panchayat area on The levy postulated under S.69 is possible only if it is made in accordance with the rules prescribed. S.74 provides for recovery of arrears of tax, cess, etc. But before recourse can be had to that Section, there should be a proper levy. S.74 reads: 74. Recovery of arrears of tax, cess, etc. Any arrear of cess, rate, surcharge or tax imposed or fees levied under this Act shall be recoverable as an arrear of public revenue under the law relating to the recovery of arrears of public revenue for the time being in force: (emphasis supplied) 4. R.10 prescribing the procedure referred to in S.69 reads: "10. Service of notice and the levy of profession tax. R.10 prescribing the procedure referred to in S.69 reads: "10. Service of notice and the levy of profession tax. (1) If, in the opinion of the Executive Authority profession tax is or will be due from any company or person for any half year, he shall serve a notice on such company or person either in that half year or in the succeeding half year requiring the company or person to furnish within such period, not being less than thirty days as may be specified in the notice, a return in the form given in the schedule to these rules showing the income on the basis of which, according to such company or person, it or he is liable to be assessed to profession tax for the half year in question. Thereupon it shall be open to such company or person to submit a return showing the income derived by it or him during the half year for which profession tax is claimed or for the corresponding half year of the previous year and produce any evidence on which the company or person may rely in support of the return made. (2) It a return is made as required under sub-rule (1) and the Executive Authority is satisfied that it is correct and complete, he shall levy the profession tax from such company or person on the basis of such return. Explanation: In cases not falling under clause (b) of R.5 or under R.7, if the company or person produces the notice of demand of income-tax served on it or him under S.156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the year comprising the half year in question, the Executive Authority shall be bound to take one half of the income mentioned in such notice of demand as the income derived from the sources on which profession tax is leviable under the Act, as the income on the said sources for the purposes of levying profession tax. (3) If no return is made as required under sub-rule (1) or if the Executive Authority is satisfied that any return so made is incorrect or incomplete the Executive Authority shall, after giving the company or person a reasonable opportunity for showing cause against the action proposed, assign to such company or person the class in the scale appropriate to the half yearly income of the company or person as estimated by him. (4) The Executive Authority may. when classifying any company or person under sub-rule (3) do so on general considerations with reference to the nature and reputed value of the business transacted, the size and rental of residential and business premises, the quantity and number of articles dealt with, the number of persons employed, the income-tax or agricultural income-tax paid and the return if any furnished under sub-rule (1)." 5. The procedural safeguards of R.10 and the connected rules have not been admittedly complied with before issuing Ext P1. In principle, therefore, the petitioner's counsel, Shri. K. Surendra Mohan is right in his criticism of Ext. P1. Ext. P1 and the orders following Ext. P1 are totally unsustainable in law, and in issuing Ext. P1, the first respondent acted contrary to law, and, therefore, acted without jurisdiction. 6. I must now deal with the specific contention on behalf of the respondents as regards the locus standi of the petitioner. The petitioner is the Secretary of an association. The members of that association are tax-payers. The association can, of course, espouse the cause of the members in matters of public interest, such as questions of vital interest to the Community as a whole without regard to their status, class or occupation (like in the case of supply of water or prevention or control of pollution) or questions which shock the conscience of the public when life or liberty is in danger and the victims are so poor or so helpless (such as the bonded labourer, the detenu, and the like) that they have no access to the law. In all these and other like situations, public interest litigation is a well accepted mode of invoking the law by any person or an association of persons at the instance of the helpless victims. 7. But this petition is not concerned with any matter of public interest, but of individual interests of the assessees who happen to be members of the association. Each assessee is entitled to approach this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. But he must himself do so, or by a duly authorised power of attorney holder, which the petitioner admittedly is not, and pay the requisite court fee which admittedly has not been paid. It is nowhere stated in this petition that the Secretary of the association is himself an assessee. But he must himself do so, or by a duly authorised power of attorney holder, which the petitioner admittedly is not, and pay the requisite court fee which admittedly has not been paid. It is nowhere stated in this petition that the Secretary of the association is himself an assessee. The petitioner is therefore not shown to be an aggrieved person. 8. In the circumstances, while the first respondent acted without the authority of law, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the impugned orders, and the petition, therefore, fails. 9. The fate of this Petition does not, however, enable the Panchayat to act outside the law. Any such action is a fraud on its constitution. 10. The Original Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.