Unincorporated associations do not have the locus standi to file writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is applicable to both constitutional and legal rights.

( 1 ) THE Court: The Tenant's Welfare Association petitioner No. 1 herein made this writ petition by the pen of one Sri Mahendra Kumar Sanghai, respondent No. 2 herein claimed to be the Secretary of such Association. Admittedly the petitioner No. 1 Association is not the tenant of the premises in question. A list of tenants has been annexed claiming that the petitioner No. 1 is representing such tenants. But neither they have not made parties to the writ petition nor they have filed individual Court fees for making joint writ petition under a self same cause of action. Naturally, the private respondent being the owner of the property challenged the locus standi of the writ petitioners.

( 2 ) MR. Ajit Kumar Panja, learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondents cited two judgments of this High Court one of which was delivered by a single Judge and another is delivered by a Division Bench of this Court.

( 3 ) IN AIR 1990 Cal 176 (Sand Carrier's Owners' Union and Ors. v. Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta and Ors.) a single Judge of this Court held that unincorporated associations are not legal persons and as such writ petitions are not maintainable. An association can be formed to protect the interest of consumers, tenants or other groups with the common interest but such group cannot move writ application. The writ petition, at the instance of an association, is not maintainable where the association itself is not affected by any order.

( 4 ) IN 1993 (2) CLJ 99 (Siliguri Inter District Minibus Owners' Association and Ors. v. Sri Bijon Krishna Bhowmick) a Division Bench in which such single Judge was also Member of the Bench accepted such view point. In paragraph therein such Division Bench observed that the member of such association may be affected by common order and may have common grievance but for the purpose of enforcing the rights of the members writ petition at the instance of such association is not maintainable.

( 5 ) SO far as the merit of the case is concerned, I find the challenge of the writ petitioners are the two notices issued by the Executive Engineers (C)/bldg. Borough under IV and V on 24th January, 2002 and 5th March, 2002 under section 411 (1) and section 411 (2) respectively of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. First notice was addressed to Sri Amar Chand Lakhotia and Ors. being constituted Attorney of Sri Ramesh Kumar Lakhotia. It appears that they are the private respondents herein. The second notice was issued addressing the same person as well as all other occupiers of 263, Rabindra Sarani, Calcutta-700 007, the premises in question.

( 6 ) THE scope of the section 411 (1) is to cause a written notice to be served on the owners and to be put on some conspicuous part of the wall or building or served on the occupier if any, of the building requiring such owner or occupier forthwith to demolish, repair or secure such wall or building or thing as the case may require. So far as sub-section 2 is concerned, the Municipal Commissioner may cause a proper hearing or fence or other means of protection to be put up at the expense of the owner of such wall or building for safety of the public or the inmates thereof, and, may, after giving them such notice as the Municipal Commissioner may think necessary, require the inmates of the building to vacate it.

( 7 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, to bypass the right of tenancy which has been created in favour of the tenants under the original landlord, the private respondents have taken the recourse of the provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Act, in connivance with the authorities and got issuance of such notices to demolish the building for which the tenants will be the sufferer. Moreover, the notices have been issued by the Executive Engineer which is supposed to be issued by the Municipal Commissioner as per the Act. The power of delegation has been provided under section 48 (4) (b) under which the Executive Engineer