Writ petition challenging expired tribunal notifications is infructuous and barred by lack of locus and territorial jurisdiction.

The Petitioner, General Secretary of the MDMK, challenged an order dated 07.11.2012 passed by the UAPA Tribunal.

The Tribunal had confirmed a Central Government Notification dated 14.05.2012, which declared the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) an "unlawful association" under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

While the LTTE did not contest the ban, the Petitioner sought to quash it, claiming locus standi as a "sympathiser and supporter" mentioned in the Notification’s preamble.

The Respondents raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, territorial jurisdiction, and the fact that the 2012 Notification had since been superseded by subsequent bans.

1. Whether the Petitioner has the locus standi to challenge the Tribunal's confirmation of the ban when the association itself did not do so.

2. Whether the Madras High Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain a challenge against a Tribunal based in New Delhi.

3. Whether the writ petition is rendered infructuous due to the lapse of the specific 2012 Notification and the issuance of subsequent Notifications.

The court applied Section 3 (Declaration of association as unlawful), Section 4 (Reference to Tribunal), and Section 6 (Period of operation/tenure of notification) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

It relied on the precedent Petitioners Rights Forum v. Union of India (2013 4 L.W. 391).

only office bearers or members have standing under Section 4(3) of the Act.

a challenge to a lapsed notification is moot.

the Delhi High Court holds primary territorial jurisdiction over the UAPA Tribunal.

The Court found that the Petitioner failed to establish locus standi because, as per Section 4(3) of the Act, the right to represent the organization during an inquiry is restricted to the association and its office bearers; "sympathisers" do not qualify as "aggrieved persons".

Regarding jurisdiction, the Court noted that while some hearings occurred in Tamil Nadu, the Tribunal is legally situated within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.

Crucially, the Court determined the matter was infructuous because the 2012 Notification had a limited shelf life (two years at the time) and had been replaced by a "seamless" chain of subsequent notifications, the latest being in 2024.

The Court refused the Petitioner’s oral plea to amend the prayer to challenge the current 2024 notification, noting it constituted a separate cause of action.

It held that the Petitioner lacked locus standi, the Court lacked territorial jurisdiction, and the specific challenge was infructuous as the 2012 ban had already lapsed and been replaced.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.