JUDGMENT H. Baruah, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner(s) herein has challenged the vires of the Rule 242 and Rule 246 of the Meghalaya Excise Rules as amended by the Meghalaya Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2009 and notified vide notification dated 3rd July, 2009 contained under No. ERTS(E) 11/98/124 and published in the Gazette of Meghalaya 16th July, 2009 as well as Rule 373 of Meghalaya Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2008 as notified vide notification dated 2nd April, 2009 contained under No. ERTS(E)22/2008/23 and published in the Gazette of Meghalaya 9th April, 2009. Further petitioner(s) also have challenged the legality of the order dated 14.7.2009 issued by respondent No. 3 under No. K/EX/10/97/35. 2. The facts involved in this case are as follows: Petitioner No. 1 is an association originally registered as "Shillong Wine Dealers Association" under the Meghalaya Societies Registration Act, (Act 7 of 1990) vide Registration No. SR/SWDA-598/94 of 1994 having its registered office at V.W Bonded Warehouse, Lower Lachumiere, Shillong-1, East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya. Subsequently on 18.8.2009 in the general meeting of the aforesaid "Shillong Wine Dealers Association" a resolution was adopted to alter its name from "Shillong Wine Dealers Association" to "Meghalaya Wine Dealers Association" with immediate effect and on the same date the petitioner No. 2 being the Secretary of the association (elected as Secretary vide resolution No. 2) submitted an application to the Registrar of societies. Government of Meghalaya, Shillong to approve the resolution No. 2 so adopted on 18.8.2009 in its general meeting in regard to change/alteration of the name of the association from "Shillong Wine Dealers Association" to "Meghalaya Wine Dealers Association" and also to do the needful. It is claimed by the petitioner(s) that the petitioner association is a legal person having been constituted of Members and is entitled to all rights, privilege and protection guaranteed under the constitution of India and the law for the time being in force. 3. Petitioner association as contended is composed of 20 members associated with the business of Bonded Warehouse for storage of liquor, i.e., Indian Made Foreign Liquor ('IMFL'), 150 numbers of members of retail sellers of IMFL and 12 numbers of members having Bar in the State of Meghalaya. All the members of the petitioners' association have got common grievances and accordingly had taken up the matter with the Government of Meghalaya in the name of the association. All the members of the petitioners' association have got common grievances and accordingly had taken up the matter with the Government of Meghalaya in the name of the association. It is contended that since the members have got a common cause of action they filed the instant writ petition in the name of association jointly to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The members of the association having obtained licences are dealing in business of liquor within the State of Meghalaya by obtaining licences from the respondent authorities by paying stipulated license fee before issuance of licence followed by advance payment of excise duties import dudes, countervailing duty, gallonage fees, etc., as well as security deposit paid in advance in the following scale. Licencees Present security deposit Bonded warehouse Rs. 5,000 IMFL Retail Licence Rs. 2,000 Bar Licence Rs. 1,000 While the members of the petitioners' association running the business in liquor on the basis of the licences granted to them by the respondent authorities by notification dated 3.7.2009 contained under No. ERTS(E)11/98/124 and published in the Gazette of Meghalaya 16th July, 2009 Rule 246 (unamended) of the Meghalaya Excise Rules ('the Rules') have been amended while vide notification dated 2nd April, 2009 contained under No. ERTS(E)22/2008/23 and published in the Gazette of Meghalaya 9th April, 2009 a new Rule 373 has been added to the Principal Rules. The amended rules may be reproduced as under: Rule 246. For existing Rule 246 of the Principal Rule, the following shall be substituted, namely - "Security Deposit" - an advance deposit pledged as Security in favour of the Commissioner of Excise for due observance of the conditions and terms of the license and ensuring prompt payment of license fees shall be deposited by all licensees. The amount of Security deposit will be as follows: (A) (i) Bonded warehouses = Rs. 5,00,000 (ii) Distillery/Bottling Units = Rs. 5,00,000 (iii) IMFL retail license = Rs. 1,00,000 (iv) Bar License = Rs. 75,000 (v) Methylated/Rectified = Rs. 10,000 Spirit/Medicinal and Toilet Preparations ....Rule 373 (New Rule) - (i) All liquor and Veer bottles, etc., containing IMFL, Beer, Wines, Gin, Vodka, Rum of different capacity and size imported by licensed Bonded Warehouse locally/from outside and sold in the state have a hologram prescribed for the purpose. (ii) The cost of the hologram will be borne by the manufacturer/bottler/bonded warehouse and added in their Cost Price Separately. (ii) The cost of the hologram will be borne by the manufacturer/bottler/bonded warehouse and added in their Cost Price Separately. (iii) Hologram will be ordered by the Excise Department and supplied to the manufacturer/bottler/bonded warehouse who will affix the hologram in the liquor, beer bottles, etc., before effecting export or sales as the case may be from their premises to the concerned importer. (iv) The Officer-in-charge of the Bonded Warehouse will verify and ensure that no issue of the liquor from the Bonded Warehouse should be allowed if holograms are not affixed on the bottle. Issue without a hologram is illegal. (v) The cost of each hologram is subject to change from time to time. (vi) The annual fee for registration/renewal of hologram by any firm is Rs. 1,00,000 to be paid through Treasury Challan. The fee is subject to enhancement at any time as the State Government may consider appropriate. (vii) Renewal will be effected annually by the Commissioner of Excise subject to satisfactory performance by the firm.... Pursuant to the amended Rule 246, respondent No. 4 issued a direction to all bonded warehouses, IMFL retail licencees, Bar licencees and others vide letter under No. K/EX/10/97/55 dated 14.7.2009 to furnish the security deposit in the form of call deposit valid for 5(five) years in favour of Commissioner of Excise (respondent No. 3) Meghalaya, Shilling on or before 16th August, 2009 with a direction that such call deposit should be made with the Shillong Co-operative Urban Bank with further direction that security deposit should be submitted to the office of the respondent No. 4 along with original licence for further necessary action, failing which action will be taken as per relevant rules and provision laid down in Meghalaya Excise Act. It is contended by the petitioners that members of the petitioner's association obtained the respective licences by paying security deposit at the rate of Rs. 5,000, Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 1,000 in respect of Bonded warehouse, IMFL retail licencees and Bar licencees respectively. But by the impugned amendment of the aforesaid Rule 246 of the Meghalaya Excise Rules, the security deposit has been enhanced to a greater degree to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs, 1 lakh and 75 thousands respectively. 5,000, Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 1,000 in respect of Bonded warehouse, IMFL retail licencees and Bar licencees respectively. But by the impugned amendment of the aforesaid Rule 246 of the Meghalaya Excise Rules, the security deposit has been enhanced to a greater degree to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs, 1 lakh and 75 thousands respectively. It is contended by the writ petitioner(s) that the enhancement of the security deposit by way of amendment of the original provision of Rule 246 is beyond the scheme of the Act and the rules framed thereunder which is manifestly unjust, arbitrary and unreasonable. Section 26 of Meghalaya Excise Act provides for source and basis for security deposit while Section 36 of the Meghalaya Excise Act empowers the Government to make rules but the enhancement of the security deposit, if the provision of Sections 26 and 36 of the Meghalaya Excise Act are read conjointly would indicate such amendment of the Rule 246 beyond the scheme of the Act. It is further contended by the petitioner(s) that the statute does not empower the State respondent to enhance the security deposit to such a high extent without showing any proper justification. The writ petitioner(s) further contended that such amendment could have been done by the State respondents in respect of the security deposit staying within the frame work of Rule 246 (unamended). But the State respondent by amending the Rule 246 fixed the security deposit at a sky high rate which caused prejudice to the writ petitioner(s), members of the writ petitioners' association and infringement of the legal right. 4. The petitioner(s) in the writ petition further alleged that such amendment of Rule 246 of the Rules, the respondent authorities ought to have adhered to the provisions of Section 36 of the Meghalaya Interpretation and General Causes Act, 1972 and the amendment so made by deviating therefrom would be un-constitution and against the intention of the Act. Accordingly the amendment of the Rule 246 of the Rules as notified vide notification dated 3rd July, 2009 contained under No. ERTS(E)11/98/124 and published in the Gazette of Meghalaya 16th July, 2009 turns null and void. 5. Accordingly the amendment of the Rule 246 of the Rules as notified vide notification dated 3rd July, 2009 contained under No. ERTS(E)11/98/124 and published in the Gazette of Meghalaya 16th July, 2009 turns null and void. 5. It is further contended that besides amendment of the Rule 246 of the Rules the respondent authorities have also introduced a new Rule (Rule 373) after Rule 372 by which respondent authorities try to compel the licence holders in other words the licencees to bear the cost of hologram to be fixed to all liquor and Beer bottles which is not within the scheme of the Act and therefore, illegal. The amended provision of the Rules 242 and 246 prescribing payment of enhanced amount of security deposit even by the existing licencees is beyond of ambit of Section26 read with Section 36 of the parent Act. Similarly, incorporation of a new Rule (Rule 373) is wholly unknown to the Act. Both the provisions brought in by way of delegated legislation accordingly to the writ petitioner(s) is colourable exercise of power and violative of the Meghalaya Excise Act. The petitioner(s) also alleged that trade in liquor is res extra commercium as laid down in the case between Gupta Modern Breweries v. State of J&K and Ors. (2007) 6 SCC 317 and being not entitled to protection of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, the respondent authorities taking advantage thereof amended the Rule 246 of the Rules to accumulate a higher rate of security deposit from the licencees at the time of taking out me license. The licencees are required to pay the security deposit together with other fees per provision of Section26 of the Meghalaya Excise Act. Security deposit being a guarantee for performance of the terms and conditions of the licence and once said terms and conditions having been settled for the purpose of settlement for a particular term, no provision in the Meghalaya Excise Act provides for revision of the said term as per Rule 246 of the Principal Act. By way of amendment respondent authorities are trying to re-fix the terms and conditions of the licence already fixed without any justification and in arbitrary manner. By way of amendment respondent authorities are trying to re-fix the terms and conditions of the licence already fixed without any justification and in arbitrary manner. The petitioner(s), therefore, in the above facts and the move of the State respondents have filed this instant writ petition to declare Rules 242 and 246 (as amended) of the Meghalaya Excise Act (Amendment) Rules, 2009 as notified vide notification No. ERTS(E)11/98/124 and published in the Gazette of Meghalaya dated 16.7.2009 (Annexure 3) and also Rule 373 of the Meghalaha Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2008 as notified vide notification dated 2.4.2009 contained under No. ERTS(E) 22/2008/23 and published in the Gazette of Meghalaya 9th April, 2009 (Annexure 5) ultra vires to the Meghalaya Excise Act and to set aside and quash the order dated 14.7.2009 issued under letter No. K/EX/10/97/35 issued by respondent No. 3. 6. The respondents herein resisted this writ petition by raising a preliminary objection in their counter affidavit that the petitioner(s) have no locus standi to file the writ petition and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable in fact and law. Further, in the counter affidavit the respondents contended that the Rule 246 (unamended) of Meghalaya Excise Rules has been amended to revise the rate of security deposit, which is within me competence of the Government. Section 36 of the Meghalaya Excise Act empowers the Government to make Rules for carrying out the provisions of the Act or any other law for the time being in force, relating to excise revenue and also for manufacture, supply, storage or sell of any intoxicant, etc., Therefore, by virtue of this section. Rule 246 (unamended) has been amended in order to revise the rate of security deposit to increase the excise revenue of the Government of Meghalaya. Therefore, the allegation of the petitioners that such amendment to the rules has been brought in by the respondent authorities in colourable exercise of power is totally unfounded, baseless and imaginary. It is also contended in the context of incorporation of a new rule that such amendment is also possible under Section 36of the Meghalaya excise Act for the purpose of storage and sell of IMFL, Beer, Wines, Gin, Vodka, Rum, which fall within the meaning of intoxicants. Therefore, incorporation of Rule 373 (New) in the Rules is not liable to be declared as ultra vires to the Meghalaya Excise Act. Therefore, incorporation of Rule 373 (New) in the Rules is not liable to be declared as ultra vires to the Meghalaya Excise Act. The respondents herein therefore, in view of above contentions raised in their counter affidavit prays this Court to dismiss the writ petition as brought in by the writ petitioner(s). 7. Mr. A.M. Mazumder, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S.S Dey, learned Counsel for the petitioner(s) as well as Mr. K.S. Kynjing, learned Advocate General, Meghalaya assisted by Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. S. Sen, learned senior counsel appearing for and on behalf of respondent No. 4 were heard at length. 8. Now, the primary issue before us is whether at the threshold, without going into the merit of the writ petition it can be disposed of by concentrating to the issue of maintainability. To answer this issue we like to pause whether the writ petitioner(s) herein has locus standi to file the writ petition challenging the vires of the amended rules and new rules in the Rules (amended) as indicated in the foregoing paragraphs. To answer this issue we must go into the facts as averred in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the writ petition. From a bare reading of these two paragraphs, it is noticed that 20 members of bonded warehouses, 12 members of the Bars and 150 members of retail stores formed an association and registered it under the name and style "Shillong Wine Dealers Association". It was registered under the Meghalaya Societies Registration Act (Act 7 of 1990) vide registration No. SR/SWDA-598/94 of 1994 having its registered office at V.W. Bonded Warehouse/Lower Lachumiere, Shillong-1, East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya. But subsequently on 18.8.2009 by a resolution adopted in its general meeting decided to alter its name from "Shillong Wine Dealers Association" to "Meghalaya Wine Dealers Association" with immediate effect. For that purpose on the very day the petitioner No. 2 who has been elected as Secretary of the association submitted an application to the Registrar of Societies, Government of Meghalaya along with the resolution for alteration of the name from "Shillong Wine Dealers Association" to "Meghalaya Wine Dealers Association". In the writ petition it is nowhere stated that after submission of the application along with the resolution, the name of "Shillong Wine Dealers Association" has been changed/altered to "Meghalaya Wine Dealers Association". In the writ petition it is nowhere stated that after submission of the application along with the resolution, the name of "Shillong Wine Dealers Association" has been changed/altered to "Meghalaya Wine Dealers Association". The respondents, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in particular challenged the locus standi of the petitioner(s) to file such a writ petition in their counter affidavit. It is specifically contended in the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that the petitioner(s) has no locus standi to file the instant writ petition and as such on this ground alone petition is liable to be dismissed. Now, the question before us, whether such an unregistered association can be a legal person to bring an action under Article 226 of the Constitution. The fact that the petitioners' association still remains an unregistered association can be located/spotted from Annexure 1 to the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Annexure 1 is a communication of the Registrar of Societies, Meghalaya, Shillong dated 22.11.2009 addressed to the Commissioner of Excise, Meghalaya, Shillong wherein it has been stated/indicated that for want of certain documents as indicated therein at Sl. No. 1 to 3, "Shillong Wine Dealers Association" could not be registered as "Meghalaya Wine Dealers Association" as desired by the applicant. This communication goes to show that though an application was made for alteration of the name and for registration, the Registrar of Societies, Meghalaya, Shillong was unable to register the society for want of documents in the altered name, namely, "Meghalaya Wine Dealers Association", therefore, apparently, "Meghalaya Wine Dealers Association" remained unregistered till date and it cannot file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the vires of the amended rules and the new rule of the amended Rules. 9. The meaning of locus standi in New Lexicon Webstars Dictionary (Encyclopedic edn.) is given as "the right to appear in court or to be heard on any question", in the case of Mohan Chowdhury v. Chief Commissioner, Tripura AIR 1964 SC 173 when the issue of locus standi came to the forefront before the Supreme Court, Sinha, CJ (then he was) observed as under: In order that the court may investigate the validity of a particular ordinance or act of a Legislature, the person moving the court should have a locus standi. If he has no locus standi to move the court, the court will refuse to entertain his petition questioning the vires of the particular legislation. In view of the President's order passed under the provision of Article 359(1) of the Constitution, the petitioner has lost his locus standi to move this Court during the period of emergency. Now the question, before us is whether the petitioner, "Meghalaya Wine Dealers Association" can assumed the character of either a juristic person or legal person without registration and can bring the writ petition challenging the vires of the amended and new rules. "Meghalaya Wine Dealers Association" is an association of the licensees who obtained such licences for running liquor business in the State of Meghalaya. Each individual licence holder if is aggrieved by any action of the Government or the respondent authorities can bring an action under Article 226 of the Constitution but individual licence holder cannot file writ petition for each and every licence holder unless they form an association and such association is registered. When the association is registered under the relevant Act such association assumes the character of a juristic person or a legal person which may sue or may be sued. This "Meghalaya Wine Dealers Association" admittedly being not a registered society under the Meghalaya Societies Registration Act, it cannot file writ petition against the respondents seeking relief as indicated in the writ petition and in that situation the writ petition so filed by such unregistered association would be not maintainable. 10. Legal personality means, persons who are regarded under the law as persons being capable of exercising right or having duty to have locus standi to move writ application. Individual person aggrieved by any action or inaction on the part of the State or the Authority under Article 12 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India which infringed his or its right or have been prejudicially affected by any order, can move the writ application. Similarly partnership firm, company, body corporate, authority created by and under the statute can file a writ application if their rights are affected. Since "Meghalaya Wine Dealers Association" cannot be branded either as legal or juristic person for want of registration under the Meghalaya Societies Registration Act, it has no locus standi to file a writ application, the same being not fall within the meaning of person aggrieved. 11. Since "Meghalaya Wine Dealers Association" cannot be branded either as legal or juristic person for want of registration under the Meghalaya Societies Registration Act, it has no locus standi to file a writ application, the same being not fall within the meaning of person aggrieved. 11. The issue whether unincorporated association even if recognized by the Government according to the Central Services (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1959 can bring an action or in other words file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is answered in the case between Director General Ordnance Factories Employees' Association v. Union of India and Director General Ordnance Factories AIR 1969 Cal. 149 . Learned Judge of the Calcutta High Court while rendering the judgment in the case (supra) in paragraph 6 to 9 answered the issue as under: 6. Before entering into the merits of the petition, it is necessary to dispose of the preliminary objection taken on behalf of the respondent 3, namely, that the Petitioner, being an unincorporated association, cannot maintain an application under Article 226 and that the grievance, if any, of its members should be agitated in appropriate proceedings brought by them in their individual capacity. 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. Secy. to Government U.P. Labour Dept. AIR 1951 ALL 1 (FB); General Secy. Eastern Zone Insurance Employees' Assocn. v. Zonal Manger, Eastern Zone Life Insurance Corporation AIR 1962 Cal 45 ) and Registration Act cannot confer this right. (Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore AIR 1951 Mys. 14). 12. In Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar and Ors. v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bharthana and Anr. Eastern Zone Insurance Employees' Assocn. v. Zonal Manger, Eastern Zone Life Insurance Corporation AIR 1962 Cal 45 ) and Registration Act cannot confer this right. (Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore AIR 1951 Mys. 14). 12. In Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar and Ors. v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bharthana and Anr. AIR 1984 Allahabad 46, a full bench of the Allahabad High Court in paragraphs 20 and 45 observed as follows: 20. To summarise, the position appears to be that an association of persons, registered or unregistered, can file a petition under Article 226 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 or 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 authorize 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. 45. Our answer to the referred questions is as follows: Q.1 - Whether an association of persons, registered or unregistered, can maintain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the enforcement of the rights of its members as distinguished from the enforcement of its own rights? A.1 - The position appears to be that an association of persons, registered or unregistered, can file a petition under Article 226 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 public injury leading to public interest litigation; provided the association has some concern deeper than that of a wayfarer or a busybody, i.e., it has a special interest in the subject-matter. (2) In case of public injury leading to public interest litigation; provided the association has some concern deeper than that of a wayfarer or a busybody, i.e., it has a special interest in the subject-matter. (3) Where the rules or regulations of the association specifically authorize 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. 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. Q.2 - Whether a single writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable on behalf of more than one petitioner, not connected with each other as partners or those who have no other legally subsisting jurat relationship where the questions of law and fact, involved in the petition, are common? A.2 - A single writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by more than one petitioner, not connected with each other as partners or any other legally subsisting jurat relationship, is maintainable where the right to relief arises from the same act or transaction and there is a common question of law or fact or where though the right of claim does not arise from the same act or transaction, the petitioners are jointly interested in the cause or causes of action. Q.3 - In case the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether only one set of court-fees would be payable on such petition or each such individual petitioner has to pay court-fees separately? A.3- Where a single writ petition by an association or by more than one person is maintainable, then a single set of court-fees would be payable. Else, each petitioner is liable to pay separate court-fees Q.4 - In case answer to question No. 1 is in the negative, whether the defect of misjoinder of several petitioners in the writ petition can be cured by requiring each such petitioner to pay separate court fees? A.4 - The technical defect of misjoinder of petitioners can, in the discretion of the court, be cured by each petitioner paying separate court-fees. A.4 - The technical defect of misjoinder of petitioners can, in the discretion of the court, be cured by each petitioner paying separate court-fees. Q.5 - Whether the petition is maintainable for questioning similar actions taken by different Mandi Samitis Independently or each other in cases where the aggrieved party seeks relief against each such Committee on identical grounds? A.5 - Our answer to this question is in the affirmative. Hon'ble High Court in both cases (supra) held that unincorporated/unregistered association cannot maintain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for enforcement of its own right. The petitioner(s) herein, therefore, being an unregistered association/society under the statute, therefore, cannot file the writ application for an enforcement of its own right. 13. This issue has also been settled by this High Court while deciding the case between All Manipur DIC Supervisors' Association v. State of Manipur and Ors. 2000 (1) GLT 374. In paragraph 14 of the judgment it is held as under: 14. This is not a public interest litigation. Admittedly, the petitioner-association is not registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or under any other statute. A technical point is taken in paragraph 2 of the affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner Association, not being a registered body is not a legal entity which can sue or be sued in its name, on this point, in paragraph 3 of the rejoinder affidavit, it is stated "the petitioner Association having disclosed the names and service particulars of its members in an Appendix to the writ petition, has got legal entity to sue and be sued in law, though it has not been registered." Obviously, such disclosure does not confer any legal entity on the petitioner Association to maintain a legal proceeding. Nothing has been placed before me to show that the petitioner Association, though not a legal entity is permitted by any specific statutory provision to sue or be sued in its collective capacity. Mr. T. Nandakumar, learned Advocate General, submits that the petitioner Association, not being a registered body having legal entity, This writ petition filed by its not maintainable and liable to be dismissed on this score alone. Mr. T. Nandakumar, learned Advocate General, submits that the petitioner Association, not being a registered body having legal entity, This writ petition filed by its not maintainable and liable to be dismissed on this score alone. Where a number of individuals are affected by an official act, they can ordinarily bring a legal proceeding to challenge that act only if all such persons joined in the proceedings by name, in the instant case, all the members of the petitioner Association who have been adversely affected by the impugned Government order, Annexure A/14 dated 13.1.1994 ought to have joined in the writ petition by name. It has been held in DGOF Employees' Association v. Union of India AIR 1969 Cal. 149 (151) that 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. 15. Even where an association is permitted by law to bring a legal proceeding, it can bring an application under Article 226 only when its rights as a collective body as distinguished from the aggregate rights of its members are affected by the act challenged in the proceedings (Chiranjit Lal v. Union of India AIR 1951 SC 41 )". This Court while answering the issue also relied in the ratio laid down in Director General Ordinance Factories Employees' Association v. Union of India and Director General Ordinance Factories AIR 1969 Cal. 149 and Chiranjit Lal v. Union of India AIR 1951 SC 41 . 14. A similar view has been adopted by this Court while rendering a judgment in the case between Joint Action Committee of PWD, Manipur v. State of Manipur and Ors. 2008 (Supp.) GLT 131. In paragraph 8 and 9 of the judgment it is held as under: 8. 14. A similar view has been adopted by this Court while rendering a judgment in the case between Joint Action Committee of PWD, Manipur v. State of Manipur and Ors. 2008 (Supp.) GLT 131. In paragraph 8 and 9 of the judgment it is held as under: 8. This Court has given anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel of the rival parties as well as the records available and the Law Reports referred to by the learned Counsel. It is an admitted position that the present writ petitioner is not a registered Association as required to be a Juristic person to file a writ petition before the court of law. Tough in the writ petition, the petitioner Contended that it is the representative of 3 registered trade Unions/Associations but in support of its contention, no document is annexed to the writ petition and also there is no such averment in the petition to the effect that the disengaged M.R. Workers are the members of it, rather, it appears from the records that 7 persons, who were re-engaged by the respondents, they themselves filed separate writ petitions Challenging their respective order of disengagement and this Court in those writ petitions passed order in favour of them. As the respondents initially did not comply with the order of this Court, those M.R. workers filed Contempt petitions before this Court and while the contempt petitions, being Contempt No. 127 of 1998, 234 of 1999 and 233 of 2002 were pending, the respondents re-engaged them which will be evident from Annexure-A/12 to the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner. Unless the fundamental and/or legal and any other right of a citizen and/or juristic person has been affected by any action of the authority and/or any body and if the petitioner filed any writ petition challenging the wrong action of any authority in which it is in no way connected in such wrong action, this Court should not exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the present case is one of such cases. The aforesaid observation is based on the decision of this Court as well as the Apex Court. 9. The aforesaid observation is based on the decision of this Court as well as the Apex Court. 9. This Court in the case of All Manipur DIC Supervisors (supra) specifically held that when an Association is not a registered one under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or under any other then the writ petition filed by such Association is not maintainable. Same view was expressed by this Court in its Judgment and order dated 22.6.2005 in WP(C) No. 902 of 2002 and the judgment and order dated 28.2.2005 passed in WP(C) No. 978 of 2004. Even in the case of Land Used Board (supra) this Court also held that an unregistered Association is not a Juristic person and that apart no legal or any other right of the said Association was violated and, hence, the said Association was violated and, hence, the said Association was not aggrieved person. This Court further held in the aforesaid decisions that since the grievance of the members of the said Association were never aggrieved, they ought not to have filed writ petition as any legal right, if any, were never infringed and the instant writ petition ought not to be maintained. 15. The Apex Court while delivering a judgment in the case between B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees' Assn. and Ors. (2006) 11 SCC 731 (11). In para 36 of the judgment, it is held as under: 36. In Parents Teachers Assn. v. Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Speaking for the Bench, Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, CJ., in paras 12 and 13 observed as under (AIR pp. 38-39). 12. The appellant-petitioners have not placed before this Court any document to show that the Parents-Teachers Association is a registered and recognized association. The writ petition has been allegedly filed in public interest and the alleged large interest of the students. It is evident that the so-called Parents-Teachers Association is an unregistered and unrecognized association and, therefore. In our view, has no fundamental right to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. This point has been concluded by the decision of the Apex Court in Mahinder Kumar Gupta and by the decision of Full Bench of this Court in RSEB Accountants' Assn. A reply to the preliminary objection raised by the respondents was also made by the appellants. This point has been concluded by the decision of the Apex Court in Mahinder Kumar Gupta and by the decision of Full Bench of this Court in RSEB Accountants' Assn. A reply to the preliminary objection raised by the respondents was also made by the appellants. It is stated that the Parents-Teachers Association has been recognized by the KVS and that the Principal is the Vice-Chairman of the said Association and hence, the Association is competent to file the writ petition on behalf of the students. In our view, the above reason cannot be considered as a valid reason for maintaining the writ petition. It is not in dispute that the Association is not a registered body and recognized association. Thus, after examining this point of law in detail and placing reliance on various judgments delivered by the Apex Court from time to time, the Full Bench of this Court in RSEB Accountants' Assn. held as under: It may also be observed that an unregistered association has no fundamental right to approach this Court under Article 226of the Constitution and this point is conclude by the decision in Mahinder Kumar Gupta v. Union of India. A decision in Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Rly.) v. Union of India was relied upon where the non-registered association was held to apply under Article 32 of the Constitution. We may observe that there had been a number of instances of public interest litigation where large body of persons is having grievance against inaction of the State. Even letters have been considered to be a writ petition but all these are the matters where large section of public is affected and the personal interest of any person or a smaller section as in the present case, is not involved. Even in People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India when the question of locus standi was considered, the hon'ble Supreme Court had taken into consideration the poverty, illiteracy and the ignorance obstructing and impeding accessibility of the Judicial process and on that ground it was considered that the writ petition can be filed. In D.S Nakara v. Union of India the old pensioners individually were unable to undertake journey through labyrinths of costly and protracted legal judicial process for allowing to espouse their cause. In D.S Nakara v. Union of India the old pensioners individually were unable to undertake journey through labyrinths of costly and protracted legal judicial process for allowing to espouse their cause. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India poverty, helplessness and disability or social or economic disadvantaged position was considered a sufficient ground for maintaining the writ petition. There had been other decisions of the Apex Court as well and principles which emerge from all of them are as under: (a) That the members of the said association should have sufficient strength so as to come in the category of a large section of public. (b) That the members should be identifiable. (c) That the members must be of the category of poor/illiterate/helpless or disabled. (d) That the individual members must not be capable of filing a writ petition. (e) That the entire body of the members must authorize the association to protect their legal rights. (f) That such an association must have its own constitution, and (g) That there must be authority to file a writ petition on behalf of all the members. 13. In the instant case, none of the grounds mentioned above in (a) to (g) have been satisfied by the present appellants to maintain the writ petition. Since the above conditions are not fulfilled such an unregistered association cannot file writ petition in respect of the legal rights of the said association for the alleged breach of fundamental right as the association itself has no fundamental right of its own. 16. The Calcutta High Court, in the case of Sand Carrier's Owners' Union v. Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta and Ors. AIR 1990 Cal. 176 held that incorporated association are not legal persons and as such, writ petition are not maintainable at their instance. An association could be formed to protect the interest of consumers, tenants or other groups with common interest but such group cannot move writ application. Here, in our case also though members formed an association to protect their interest, as association it cannot file a writ application unless it attains the character of a juristic person or a legal person by registering it under a statute. Here, in our case also though members formed an association to protect their interest, as association it cannot file a writ application unless it attains the character of a juristic person or a legal person by registering it under a statute. We have already indicated herein before that by a resolution in its general meeting the association desired to alter its name from "Shillong Wine Dealers Association" to "Meghalaya Wine Dealers Association" and accordingly a move was made by elected member (petitioner No. 2 elected as Secretary) to register the association in its new name but till date it remains unregistered as can be noticed from paragraphs 1 and 2 of the writ petition together with the averments made by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in their counter affidavit supported by Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit. When the association does not assume the character of a legal person it cannot enforce right in its favour. However, a door is always open to the individual members of the association of file writ application to assert his or her right when infringed. The association, "Meghalaya Wine Dealers Association", therefore, cannot have locus standi to file this writ petition inasmuch as it cannot be branded as aggrieved person. 17. While arguing the writ petition counsel of neither party raised this issue before us rather adhered to the merit of the writ application. Since law does not agree to maintain such a writ application filed by the writ petitioner, we find it appropriate to delve this issue and decide accordingly. 18. In the result, "Meghalaya Wine Dealers Association" being not a registered association under the statute, we are of the considered view that this writ petition is not maintainable. We are, therefore, constrained to dismiss the writ petition. No cost.