Judgment : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondents. By consent of the learned counsels, the writ petition itself was taken up for final hearing. 2. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner which describes itself as the Tamil Nadu Government Office Assistants and Basic Servants Association, District Branch, Dindigul. It is fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not a registered body under any law. However, the learned counsel states that the said association had received a recognition from the Government as a Service Association. 3. When questioned as to how the writ petition can be maintained at the instance of an unregistered body, the learned counsel relies upon the recognition given by the Government. Such a plea cannot be accepted when the maintainability of the writ petition is in question. 4. A Full Bench of Madras High Court relied in Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development Officers Association, Madras v. Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Rural Development and Local Administration Department, Madras and Others AIR 1989 Mad. 224 has categorically held that an unregistered body cannot maintain a writ petition. 5. Subsequent to the Full Bench order, once again the question was raised in the light of the subsequent development of law on the subject. An attempt was made to raise before the Court to take a contrary view. However such an attempt was repelled by the judgment in All India Lawyers Union, Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary v. Union of India, rep. its Secretary to Government, Department of Communications and Broadcasting New Delhi and 2 Others 1992 (2) LW 577 . The judgment delivered by SRINIVASAN, J. repelled the contention that a recognition granted by the Government will remedy the situation. At the best, it can help the association to maintain the correspondence with the Government and on that ground an application before the Administrative Tribunal can be filed and that does not enable such an unregistered body to file a writ petition. 6. The very same contentions was rejected by the Court in para 37 of the subsequent judgment in All India Lawyers Union, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India (supra) case cited above. It was further held in that judgment which is as follows: 40. "In the result. 6. The very same contentions was rejected by the Court in para 37 of the subsequent judgment in All India Lawyers Union, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India (supra) case cited above. It was further held in that judgment which is as follows: 40. "In the result. I have no hesitation in holding that, the judgment of the Full Bench in Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development Officers Association, Madras v. Secy. to Government of T N Rural Development and Local Administration Department, Madras case holds the field and the present writ petition filed by an unregistered union cannot be entertained. The objection raised by the office is sustained and the Registry is directed to return the papers to the petitioners concerned." 7. In thelight of the decision, cited above, the present writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 are closed. Writ petition dismissed.