K. Chandru, J.
1. Originally, this Writ Petition was posted before a Division Bench along with Writ Appeal Nos. 111 to 113 of 2007. However, at the request of the Counsel for the petitioner, it was de-linked and it came to be posted before this Court.
2. When the matter was taken up to-day, Mr. D. Sadhasivan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, was asked as to how the Writ Petition is maintainable at the instance of the petitioner/Association, which is not a 'Registered body'. In paragraph No. 1 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, except for stating that the petitioner/Association is affiliated to the Tamil Nadu Retired Officials Association, which is recognized by the State Government, nothing else is mentioned. Even the details relating to members of the Association have not been furnished.
3. Learned Counsel fairly conceded that the petitioner/Association is not a registered body either under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 or the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. The recognition in respect of Tamil Nadu Retired Officials Association to which the petitioner/Association claims to have been affiliated to, has been granted by the Government only in terms of Rule 16 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules and that cannot confer upon the petitioner/Association the status of a Registered Body so as to file any Writ Petition.
4. In fact, a Full Bench of this Court in the decision reported in AIR 1989 Mad 224 Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development Officers' Association, Madras v. Government of Tamil Nadu has emphatically held that writ petition by an unregistered body is not maintainable.
5. The very same issue was considered by M. Srinivasan, J. (as He then was) in All India Lawyers' Union v. Union of India 1992 (2) LW 577, wherein, the scope of recognition granted under Rule 16 was elaborately discussed and following the above referred Full Bench Judgment, it was held that the Government granting recognition in terms of Rule-16 is only to enable the party/Association to maintain correspondence with the Government or to move the Administrative Tribunal, but, that will not enure to the benefit of an Association like the petitioner in maintaining the writ petition as it is an unregistered body.
6. The same view was also followed by this Court in Tamil Nadu Government Office Assistants & Basic Servants Association v. District Collector, Dindigul 2007 (4) CTC 683.
7. The Supreme Court, in B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees' Association : AIR2006SC3106 (II), had an occasion to consider whether an unregistered Union can maintain Writ Petition. The following passage found in paragraph Nos. 38 & 39 of the judgment is of much relevance and the same is quoted here-under:
38. ...In our opinion, the High Court gravely erred in refusing to examine the question of locus standi on the ground that it is decided in the earlier writ petition which operates as res judicata and that the petitioners even otherwise have locus standi. Chapter III of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 sets out rights and liabilities of the registered trade unions. Under the said enactment, an unregistered trade union or a trade union whose registration has been cancelled has no manner of right whatsoever, even the rights available under the ID Act have been limited only to those trade unions which are registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 by insertion of Clause 2(qq) in the ID Act w.e.f. 21-8-1984 defining a trade union to mean a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926.
39. The High Court, in our opinion, miserably failed and gravely erred in holding that Respondents 1 and 2 have locus standi to question the appointment of the appellant in the light of the change of law that has been brought about by insertion of Section 2(qq) of the ID Act and having regard to the provisions of Chapter III of the Trade Unions Act, 1926....
8. Inasmuch as the petitioner is not a registered body and the details of its members having not been disclosed, we are of the considered view that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable.
9. In this view of the matter, without going into the merits of the case, the Writ petition is dismissed on the ground of maintainability.