Judgment : The Writ Petition is filed by an association called PAPSCO Employees Federation represented by its General Secretary for the purpose of seeking a direction to the Government of Puducherry not to make any appointment as casual labourer/ daily rated employee/ voucher paid employee/ trainee without following the prescribed procedure and to direct the respondent not to extent the appointment of the already working casual labourers beyond the period of three months for which they are appointed. 2. When the matter came up for admission, this Court asked Mr.V.Ajayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner body is registered body under any law. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the association is affiliated to the Federation of Government employees which is a recognised Service Association. In essence, he is not able to show that the petitioner is a Registered Association. When asked as to how the Writ Petition is maintainable, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Fertiliser Kamgar Union. The question dealt with in that judgment was whether the workman has a locus standi to question the sale of a Fertiliser plant. In that context, it was held that even a trade union can question the sale. The Supreme Court only dealt with the locus standi of a person coming to the court. 3. But, however, this Court in more than one case has held that a Writ Petition at the instance of an unregistered body is not maintainable. See: (1) AIR 1989 Madras 224 Full Bench (Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development Officers Association, Madras v. Secretary to Government) (2) 1992 (2) L.W. 577 (All India Lawyers Union, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India). 4. Further, a similar case, namely a body affiliated to a recognised but unregistered Service Association can maintain a Writ Petition, came up for consideration before this Court in Tamil Nadu Government Office Assistants and Basic Servants Association, District Branch, Dindigul District vs. District Collector, Dindigul, Dindigul District and others reported in (2007) 5 MLJ 45 . In paras 4 to 6, it was observed as follows: "4. In paras 4 to 6, it was observed as follows: "4. A Full Bench of Madras High Court relied in Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development Officers Association, Madras v. Secretary to Government, 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) L.W. 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, 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." 5. In the light of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition at the instance of an unregistered body. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.