An unregistered association lacks the legal standing to maintain a writ petition unless filed as a public interest litigation or representative action.

T. Vaiphei, J.

1. This writ petition filed by the Tripura Bar Association is directed against the Notification No. F.5(7)-REV/87 dated 5.2.2002 issued by the Revenue Department, Govt. of Tripura by which the Advocates even if they enroll themselves as a Member of the Bar Council, are not allowed to practice deed writing without obtaining deed writing licence from the competent authority. The Bar Association also challenges the vires of Tripura Registration (Amendment) Rules, 1989 which are framed Under Section 69(bb) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.

2. Heard Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner - Bar Association. I have also heard Mr. B.R. Bhattachajree learned senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Deb and Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. At the very outset, Mr. B.R. Bhattacharjee, learned senior Counsel for the respondents has raised preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the Tripura Bar Association is an unregistered association and this association, which is not a legal entity, cannot sue in its name. Thus, according to the Counsel for the respondent, the writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this score alone at the very threshold. The learned Counsel for the respondents further submits that where a number of individual are affected by an official act, they can ordinarily bring a legal proceeding to challenge that act only if such persons are joined together in the proceeding by name and that in case all the members of the Tripura Bar Association are adversely affected by the impugned notification, they ought to have joined in the writ petition by named. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the respondents cited the following cases, namely, (1) All Manipur DIC Supervisor's Association v. State of Manipur (2) Vinoy Kumar v. State of U.P. (3) Zila Dastavej Lekhak Assn. v. State of U.P. (4) Lingappa Pochanna v. State of Maharashtra.

4. Per contra, Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Tripura Bar Association is an association of all the advocates of Tripura and by the resolution dated 8.2.2002 passed by the members of the Association it has decided to file this writ petition and authorised the Secretary to do the needful vide Annexure 1 to the writ petition and that since the impugned notification has affected the rights of the members of the Association to practice deed writing and to appear before the Registering authority, the Association has locus standi to file this writ petition. Strong reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the following decisions, namely, (1) Municipal Committee v. Land Acquisition Collector, (Para 3), (2) Scheduled Caste and Weaker Section Welfare Assn v. State of Karnataka (Para 35), (3) Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karmchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India (Para 62), (4) Venkateswara Rao v. Govt. of A.P.

5. Admittedly, the association namely Tripura Bar Association is not a registered association under any provision of law. The law regarding locus standi is now firmly settled by the Apex Court in Vinoy Kumar's case (supra). The Apex Court held at para-2 as under :

"Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests having been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The exception to the general rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of habeas corpus or quo warrant or filed in public interest. It is a matter of prudence that the court confines the exercise of writ jurisdiction to cases where leg