Judgment K. Venkataswami, C. J. 1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by Rohtas Stone Crushers Laghu Udyog sangh, Karbundiya, Sasaram through its Secretary. The prayer reads as follows : "1. That the instant writ petition is being filed by the petitioner, who is secretary of Rohtas Stones Crushers Laghu Udyog Sangh, karbundiya, Robtas (herein after to be referred to as Sangh) on behalf of its all members for quashing the various letters issued from time to time from the office of the respondent No.3 namely, the District Mines Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram (Annexure- 3 series)whereby the respondent have demand illegal royalty from the members of the petitioners Sangh without the mandate of law " 2. When the petition came up for admission we questioned the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner whether the Sangh is registered or unregistered one. We also indicated if it is an unregistered one the writ petition cannot be entertained. We adjourned the case on more than one occasion to enable the learned counsel to satisfy us regarding the maintainability of the writ petition filed by the unregistered Sangh. The learned counsel on the last adjourned date, namely, 30-1-95 cited a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1981 SC 298 (A B S K. Sangh (Rly) V/s. Union of India ). He invited our attention to paragraph 63 of the judgment which reads as follows : "a technical point is taken in the counter-affidavit that the 1st petitioner is an unrecognised association and that, therefore, the petition to that extent, is not sustainable; It has to be overruled. Whether the petitioners belong to a recognised union or not, the fact remains that a large body of persons with a common grievance exists and they have approached this Court under Article 32. Our current processual jurisprdence is not of individualistic Anglo-Indian mould. It is broad based and people oriented and envisions access to justice through class actions public interest litigation, and representative proceedings. Indeed, little Indians in large numbers seeking remedies in courts through collective proceedings, instead of being driven to an expensive plurality of litigations, is an affirmation of participative justice in our democracy. We have no hesitation in holding that the narrow concept of cause of action and person aggrieved and individual litigation is becoming odsolescent in some jurisdictions. Indeed, little Indians in large numbers seeking remedies in courts through collective proceedings, instead of being driven to an expensive plurality of litigations, is an affirmation of participative justice in our democracy. We have no hesitation in holding that the narrow concept of cause of action and person aggrieved and individual litigation is becoming odsolescent in some jurisdictions. It must fairly he stated that the learned Attorney General has taken no objection to a non recognised association maintaining the writ petitions. " 3. In the case on hand the names of the members of the Sangh are not disclosed and the grievances made out in the writ application are only the grievances of the members of the Sangh and not that of the Sangh as could be seen from the prayer extracted above. As a matter of fact, indivividual orders demanding royalty served on the members are under attack. In this background we have to consider whether the Sangh has locus standi to ventiulate the grievances of its members In AIR 1969 Cal 149 (D. G. O. F employees Assam V/s. Union of India) on the question of locus standi, D. Basu, j. observed as follows : "9. In the case of a body incorporated by law, the corporate body acquires a legal personality of itself and is as such entitled to maintain legal proceedings. But an unincorporated association has no legal personality and it is nothing but an aggregation of its members who can only bring legal proceedings in their individual capacity. Even when all of them are affected by an official act, they can challenge that only if all the members join in the proceedings by name ; the association, in such a case, cannot maintain an application under Article 226 or other legal proceeding, in its own name, as has been established by a number of decisions (Indian Sugar Mills Assocn. V/s. Secy, to Govt, U P. Labour Depat, air 1951 All 1 (FB) ; General Secy- Eastern Zone insurance Employees assocn. V/s. Zonal Manager, Eastern Zone life Insurance Corporation AIR 1962 Cal 45 ) and even reg stration under the Societies Registration Act cannot confer this right. (Bangalore District Hotel Owners. Association V/s. District magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 ).10. V/s. Zonal Manager, Eastern Zone life Insurance Corporation AIR 1962 Cal 45 ) and even reg stration under the Societies Registration Act cannot confer this right. (Bangalore District Hotel Owners. Association V/s. District magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14 ).10. To the foregoing general rule, certain exceptions have been introduced by the provisions of certain special statutes, e. g. ,- (i) A registered union is made a body corporate by Sec.13 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, and is empowered to sue and be sued in its own name. (ii) Under the Indistrial Disputes Act, 1947, an association of workmen has a right to raise industrial disputes and to represent the workmen throughout the proceedings (Ramprasad V/s. Chairman, industrial Tribunal, Patna, AIR 1961 SC 857 ) and can thus move against an award under the Act (W. B. P. W. Union V/s. A U. P. Works, Private Ltd, AIR 1962 Cal 649 ). (iii) Under Sec.47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, even, an unincorporated association can make a representation in the matter of grant of a permit and can pursue that right in a proceeding under (Sabitri Moter Service V/s. Assansol Bus Assocn. , AIR 1951 Cal 255 (SB ). " 4. A Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court reported in AIR 1984 ah.46 noticing various judgments of the Supreme Court including the one cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner held as follows : "20. To summarise, the position appears to be that an association of persosns, registered or unregistered, can file a petition under article 227 for enforcement of the rights of its members as distinguished from the enforcement of its own rights. (1) In case members of such an association are themselves unable to approach the court by reason of poverty, disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position "little Indians" ). (2) In case of a public injury leading to public interest litigation provided the association has some concern deeper than that of a way-farer or a busybody i. e. it has a special interest in the subject matter. (3) Where the rules or regulations of the association specifically authorise it to take legal proceedings on behalf of its members, so that any order passed by the court in such proceedings will be binding on the members.21. (3) Where the rules or regulations of the association specifically authorise it to take legal proceedings on behalf of its members, so that any order passed by the court in such proceedings will be binding on the members.21. In other cases an association whether registered or unregistered cannot maintain a petition under Article 226 for the enforcement or protection of the rights of its members, as distinguished from the enforcement of its own rights. " After setting out paragraph 63 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 1981 S. C.298, on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Judges observed as follows : "according to these observations the concept of cause of action and person aggrieved has become obsolescent in some jurisidictions, like public interest litigation by little Indians in large numbers seeking remedies in courts. In such a case alone an association of little Indians may be permitted to sue on their behalf. These observations graft an exception to the traditional rule of locus standi. They will not cover the case of an association suing on behalf of its members where its own interests are not affected and where its members do not answer the description of little indians. " 5. In AIR 1990 Cal.176 (Sand Carries Owners Union V/s. Board of trustees for the Port of Calcutta) the learned Single Judge after an elaborate discussion on the question with reference to the English and Indian Cases held as follows : "14. Unincorporated associations are not legal persons and as such, writ petitions are not maintainable. An association could be formed to protect the interest of consumers, tenants or other groups with the common interest but such group cannnot move writ application. No aspect of the representative law has been rapidly than the law governing standing and the standing barrier has been substantially lowered in recent years, but on the basis of the taw relating to standing as in England or in America as also in India, it can be held without any difficulty that the writ petition at the instance of an association is not maintainable where the association itself is not affected by any order. The members 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. The door of the writ court could be made open at the instance of persons or autnorities under the aforesaid four categories and to hold that every tom, Dick and Harry can move the writ application would render the standing requirement meaningless and would introduce a procedure which is not judicially recognised. " 6. We have already indicated that in the present writ application the the grievances ventilated are that of the members of the Sangh and not of the Sangh itself. Further, in view of the individual demand orders challenged in the writ petition will show that each member of Sangh has got an independent cause of action and, therefore, the cause of action is not joint one. 7. For all these reasons we hold that the petitioners Sangh cannot maintain in the writ petition and, accordingly, it is dismissed. Writ dismissed.