R. B. MISRA, J.— Heard Mr. D. K. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard Mr. A. Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. S. Deb, learned counsel for the applicant in C. M. Application No. 158 of 2006 seeking impleadment. 2. (i) In the present writ petition No. 148 of 2006, the main prayer has been made to issue Rule asking the Respondents to show cause as to why his letter dated 10.3.2006 (Annexure-3) should not be treated to be baseless and meaningless in view of the Order passed on 17.2.2006 of W.P. (C) No. 10 of 2005 and to issue Rule asking the Respondents to show cause as to why a clear direction should not be given to the Respondent No. 2 to make all payments immediately to the Petitioner Syndicate handing over the cheque or any other negotiable instrument to the elected secretary namely Shri Rupak Barman until further order of any Court or removal of the Executive Committee from the power by due process of Law. (ii) A Civil Misc. Application No. 158 of 2006 in W.P. (C) No. 148 of 2006 for impleadment has also been moved by Sri Somik Deb, learned counsel for the applicants. (iii) During course of hearing through a C.M. Application No. 256 of 2006, prayer has been made that the plaint of the suit filed by petitioner namely T.S. 145 of 2005 and copy of temporary injunction order passed on 7.12.2005 and order of the appellate court dated 3.1.2005 are intended to be placed on the record with prayer that the order dated 10.3.2006 (Annexure-3) to be.... "Arbitrary and illegal in view of the argument between the Syndicate and the Government executed on 16.1.2004 and also Order of this Hon'ble Court passed on 17.2.2006 in W.P. (C) 10 of 2005, and accordingly be quashed by issuing a Writ of Certiorari." 3. By an order dated 10.3.2006 of the Director of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Tripura (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) Shri Rupak Barman, General Secretary, Tripura Truck Owners Syndicate, Agartala has been informed that his representation dated 4.3.2006 addressed to the Commissioner, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Government of Tripura, Agartala has been examined and it has been observed that he has to obtain an order from the Court of Law for making payment in his favour. 4. 4. According to the petitioner (represented by Shri Rupak Barman, General Secretary) Tripura Truck Owners Syndicate (in short petitioner Syndicate) is a registered Trade Union Body of the Truck Owners which has preferred the present writ petition asserting that as some of the members of the 'Syndicate' has created problem due to which huge payment to the tune of Rs. 75,00000/- could not be paid to the Truck Owners of petitioner Syndicate by the State-respondents. The petitioner Syndicate, at present, is comprised of more than 400 truck owners as members. Most of the truck owners earned their livelihood from the income of their truck engaged by the petitioner Syndicate and for lack of proper payment, members have faced serious financial crisis. The labourers (engaged in their godowns) for loading, unloading goods and the food items, are not receiving their wages properly for want of fund to be paid to them by petitioner Syndicate. It appears that the Agreement dated 16.1.2004 made between the Governor of Tripura and the General Secretary, petitioner Syndicate provides the mode and modalities of carrying the work of the State Government through the Director of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs on prescribed terms and conditions. The payment to the truck owners are to be made through the General Secretary of the petitioner Syndicate. It appears that petitioner Syndicate had preferred Title Suit No. 145 of 2005 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, West Tripura, Agartala against Sri Subrata Kumar Gupta and 31 others out of total 406 members of the petitioner Syndicate, with prayer for a decree declaring and accepting the Executive Committee headed by the President Shri Amal Chakraborty and General Secretary Shri Rupak Barman who have come into power consequent upon duly conducted election pm 3.4.2005 in terms of the Constitution of the petitioner Syndicate and for a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from indentifying them as members of the Executive Committee of the petitioner Syndicate. Along with the above suit a Misc. Along with the above suit a Misc. Case bearing No. 103 of 2005 was also filed under order 39 rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code which was allowed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) byihis order dated 7.12.2005, where, Sri Subrata Kumar .Gupta, President, Shri Tapan Paul, General Secretary and Shri Babul Paul, Treasurer were restrained from performing any official transaction, namely, collection of cheques from clients or withdrawal of money etc. on behalf of the petitioner Syndicate. Against such order dated 7.12.2005 an Appeal No. 18 of 2005 was preferred by Sri Subrata Kumar Gupta & Ors. before the Additional District Judge and the later by his order dated 3.1.2006 allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 7.12.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division). Against the above order dated 3.1.2006 Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10 of 2006 preferred by the petitioner Syndicate was disposed of on 17.2.2006 by this court with the following observations. "Be that as it may, having regard to the joint submissions noted above this writ petition and the C.M, Appln. No. 41 of 2006 are closed with the consent order that the judgment and order of the learned Additional District Judge, impugned herein, are hereby set aside for the grounds mentioned above. It is made clear that the members of the Syndicate shall be at liberty to proceed for removal of any member of the Executive Committee on ground of fraud and/ or other grounds as mentioned in the said sub-clause in accordance with the procedure laid down in clause 30 or other relevant provisions. Till such removal the individual members of the duly elected Executive Committee shall, by virtue of the order of the learned trial Court, continue to function as office bearers, any order, interim or final, of the learned trial court, if any, to the contrary notwithstanding." However, the main civil suit i.e. T.S. 145 of 2005 is still pending in the court of Civil Judge, (Junior Division No. 1,) Agartala, Tripura for adjudication. 6. 6. At the outset besides addressing on the maintainability of the writ petition 148 of 2006, learned counsel for the petitioner Syndicate has focused his attention to controvert and dislodge the C. M. Application of impleadment moved by Sri Somik Deb; by arguing that some strangers who are not even members of the petitioner Syndicate without disclosing their identity have filed the Civil Misc. Application for impleadment so that after impleadment they may frustrate the cause of the petitioner Syndicate. Since Sri Rupak Barman is still General Secretary of petitioner Syndicate and has not been duly removed as, for removal of office bearers proper procedures have been provided in the Constitution of the petitioner Syndicate. The relevant provisions of petitioner Syndicate indicated are provided as below : Clause 17 deals- "(c) The number of members of the Executive Committee shall not be less than 15 and more than 31. The members of the Executive Committee shall hold office for 3 years and shall be eligible for re-election." *** **** **** ** *** *** "(j) Any office bearer of the Syndicate or any member of the Executive Committee may be removed by the majority of members in a general meeting for committing any fraud or having acted against the interest of the Syndicate, provided such office bearer or members shall be given adequate and reasonable opportunity to defend and explain his/her conduct." “30. SPECIAL GENERAL MEETING : The President may call a special general meeting of the Syndicate whenever thinks necessary by giving 15 (fifteen) days notice to the member and shall call it on a requisition signed by not less than one third of the total strength of the ordinary members of the Syndicate specifying the object or objects for which the meeting is required within 20 (twenty) days of the receipt of the requisition. The quoram for the above special general meeting shall be one-third of the total membership. No quorum is necessary for the adjourned meeting. If the President does not call a special meeting on requisition of the members, the members themselves can call such a meeting and will elect a President from them to conduct the meeting, provided that number of such members convening the meeting shall not be less than 50% of the total members in the Register." 7. If the President does not call a special meeting on requisition of the members, the members themselves can call such a meeting and will elect a President from them to conduct the meeting, provided that number of such members convening the meeting shall not be less than 50% of the total members in the Register." 7. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the office bearers are to be provided adequate and reasonable opportunity to defend their stand and conduct before their removal in view of clause 17 (j) of the constitution of petitioner Syndicate and for removal of the President the presence of 50% of the members is necessary in a special general meeting convened under clause 30 of the Constitution. According to Mr. Biswas clause 17 (j) and clause 30 are to be read together. In An-nexure-4 of list enclosed with the Misc. Application No. 158/2006 for impleadment, 206 out of total 406 members of the petitioner Syndicate have put their signature, whereas many of the members at serial Nos. 37, 59, 85, 87, 103 and 114 have put their signature twice and the decision of removal of office bearers in the special general meeting on the ground of financial irregularities and fraudulent activities prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner Syndicate is not in consonance to the provisions of clause 17 (j) and clause 30 of the Constitution. It has been brought to the notice of this court that a complaint case namely, (Shri Bijoy Sankar Saha Vs. Rupak Barman) is pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,-West Tripura, Agartala. According to Mr. Biswas, out of total number of 406 members, alleged presence of 206 members are not 50% of the total members as many manipulation, duplicacy and mis-representation, fraud and forgery have been made in Annexure 4 of list, therefore, impleadment application is liable to be rejected. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly admitted that he is not certain about the total number of registered members in the Syndicate as no authentic list was produced on behalf of the petitioner, however, according to the petitioners impleadment of strangers are neither of any assistance nor necessary as the impleadment is being sought to frustrate the interest of petitioner Syndicate just to settle personal differences. 8. On behalf of the State-respondents Mr. 8. On behalf of the State-respondents Mr. A. Ghosh, learned counsel has argued that no fundamental right of petitioner could be said to have been violated; since disputed and controversial facts are involved and material suppression has been made on behalf of the petitioner. By calling a letter dated 10.3.2006 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) impugned in the writ as baseless and meaningless, shall not be an infringement of any fundamental or any right of petitioner, whereas, no order or decision or clear verdict is emanating from letter dated 10.3.2006. On the other hand such letter is only suggestive that petitioner has to obtain order from court of law as such relief as prayed for could not be granted to the petitioner. The order dated 17.2.2006 passed in W.P. (C) No. 10 of 2006 the members of petitioner Syndicate have passed resolution for removal of office bearers in question therefore the locus standi of office bearer pursuing the present writ petition has itself become doubtful and if the petitioner is aggrieved of, same could be challenged by way of separate suit before Civil Judge or pursue earlier pending suit. According to the State-respondents in terms of the agreement between the State and the General Secretary of the petitioner Syndicate the payment by account payee cheque upto July, 2005 had been cleared for transportation of food grains from time to time from Food Corporation of India, Central Store to the State Godown. 9. Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel for the applicants (Sri Buddhadeb Datta & Others) seeking impleadment has submitted that the Writ Petition 148 of 2006 is not .maintainable on the following grounds (A) The writ petition involving serious disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution in view of the following decisions: In (State of Bihar & Anr. Vs. P. P. Sharma, IAS & Anr.) 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 222, the Supreme Court observed that High Court fell into error delving into disputed question of fact in its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. In (Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board Vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh) (1996) 1 SCC 32 7, the High Court was held to have erred in entertaining the writ petition involving disputed questions of fact. In (Chairman, Coal India Limited Vs. In (Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board Vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh) (1996) 1 SCC 32 7, the High Court was held to have erred in entertaining the writ petition involving disputed questions of fact. In (Chairman, Coal India Limited Vs. Madan Prashad Sinha) (2000) JO SCC 597, where several disputed questions of fact arose for adjudication, therefore writ petition under Article 226 was said to be not maintainable. In (Central Bank of India Vs. Rooplal Bansal) (1999) 9 SCC 254 as well as in (S. P., Forest Cell Adyar Vs. Kannans Company) (2001) 9. SCC 209, the High Court was said to have committed error in adjudicating disputed questions of fact in writ jurisdiction. In Ganga Retreatm & Towers Ltd. Vs. State ofRajasthan (2003) 12 SCC 91. In U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. Vs. U. P. Rajya Setu Nigam S. Karamchari Sangh (2004) 4 SCC 268 , the High Court should have refused to exercise its jurisdiction as the writ petition involved disputed questions of fact. In (National Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs. Haribox Swalram) (2004) 9 SCC 786 paragraph 15, SDO, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. Vs. Timudu Oram (2005) 6 SCC 156 , State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Limited (2002) 1 SCC 216 , paragraph 3 and 7. Rourkela Shramik Sangh Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2003) 4 SCC 317 paragraph 23, following Constitution Bench judgment in Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers (2001) 7 SCC 1 ; (General Manager, Kisan Sakhari Chini Mills Ltd., Sultanpur, U. P. Vs. Satrughan Nishad & Ors.) (2003) 8 SCC 639 , Orissa Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. Bharati Indusries & Ors. (2005) 12 SCC 725 paragraphs 7 and 9; (State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. KGSD Canteen Employees' Welfare Association & Ors.) (2006) 1 SCC 567 . The Supreme Court consistently held that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. (B) The writ petition is not maintainable on account of non-joinder of necessary parties. According to Mr. Deb Sri Rupak Barman has ceased to be the Secretary of the petitioner Syndicate, therefore in the light of observations in Dattatreya and Ors. Vs. Mahaveer & Ors. (B) The writ petition is not maintainable on account of non-joinder of necessary parties. According to Mr. Deb Sri Rupak Barman has ceased to be the Secretary of the petitioner Syndicate, therefore in the light of observations in Dattatreya and Ors. Vs. Mahaveer & Ors. (2004) 10 SCC 665 paragraph 10, non-impleadment of the proper party shall result suppression of material facts and the conduct of the petitioner Syndicate seeking relief is not fair, therefore on the sole point of not impleading the applicants herein the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. (C) In Swetambar Sthanakwasi Jain Samiti & Anr. Vs. Alleged Committee of Management Sri R. J. I. College, Agra & Ors. (1996) 3 SCC 11 the Supreme court has held that assumption of jurisdiction under Article 226 by the High Court when a civil suit was pending in the civil court, was un called for. The relevant paragraph 8 is produced herein as below : "We are of the view that the High Court not only fell into patent error but also exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Though the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not confined to issuing the prerogative writs, there is a consensus of opinion that the High Court will not permit this extraordinary jurisdiction to be converted into a civil court under the ordinary law. When a suit is pending between the two parties the interim and miscellaneous orders passed by the trial court against which the remedy of appeal or revision is avail-able-cannot be challenged by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Where the civil court has the jurisdiction to try a suit, the High Court cannot convert itself into an appellate or revisional court and interfere with the interim/miscellaneous orders of the civil court. The Writ jurisdiction is meant for doing justice between the parties where it cannot be done in any other forum." (D) The petitioner Syndicate represented by General Secretary, Sri Rupak Barman, is registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The Writ jurisdiction is meant for doing justice between the parties where it cannot be done in any other forum." (D) The petitioner Syndicate represented by General Secretary, Sri Rupak Barman, is registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Section 2(g) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 reads as under: ".....2 (g) "trade dispute means any dispute between employers and workmen or between workman and workmen, or between employers and employers which is connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms of employment or the conditions of labour, of any person, and "workmen" means all persons employed in trade or industry whether or not in the employment of the employer with whom the trade dispute arises...." According to Mr. Deb the dispute projected in the writ petition, even if accepted, does not in any manner indicate the same to be a trade dispute and any registration whatsoever under the Trade Unions Act cannot be pressed into service to make the writ petitioner a juristic person for the purpose of suing over an issue which is not covered by the definition contained under Section 2 (g) of the Trade Unions Act. In case of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Workers Union Vs. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. & Ors. (2001) 4 SCC 469 paragraph 2, it was held that it is for the aggrieved person or employee to seek redressal of his grievances and not for the trade union of employees to pursue writ petition. As observed by Supreme Court in Illachi Devi (Deade) by LR's & Ors. Vs. Jain Society, Protection of Orphans India & Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 413 even a society registered under the Societies Act is not a juristic person. Applying the principles enunciated hereinbefore, it has been submitted that the writ petition at the instance of petitioner Syndicate represented by Sri Rupak Barman is not maintainable. (E) The writ petition is not maintainable as the same does not conform to the prescriptions embodied under Chapter VA of the Gauhati High Court Rules. The said Chapter in clear and unambiguous terms, lays down that the writ petitioner must make statement of the prayer(s) showing the nature of order (s) sought and against whom it is sought. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the document. To test the maintainability of the present writ petition Civil Misc. The said Chapter in clear and unambiguous terms, lays down that the writ petitioner must make statement of the prayer(s) showing the nature of order (s) sought and against whom it is sought. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the document. To test the maintainability of the present writ petition Civil Misc. Application No. 256 of 2006 preferred by Mr. Biswas learned counsel is allowed and accordingly documents intended to be brought before the court are allowed to be placed on record. The applicants Sri Buddhadeb Datta and others are necessary parties and their nonjoinder and depriving them from rendering assistance shall not be in the interest of justice, therefore, their impleadment for testing the maintainability of writ petition is necessary as such Impleadment Application moved by Mr. Somik Deb is allowed. Since the civil suit is pending for adjudication before the Trial Court and serious disputed questions of facts are involved in the instant writ petition which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The controversies and disputed questions of fact could at best be adjudicated by leading evidences and examining the records in proper suit, therefore, in my respectful consideration the present writ petition of the petitioner Syndicate is not maintainable and accordingly it is dismissed. However, dismissal of writ petition on the maintainability shall not affect the merits of suit "or any case relating to petitioner Syndicate to be adjudicated in trial court or at any forum.