- (1.) G. P. Mathur, J. Three prayers have been made in this petition. The first prayer is for quashing the Notification No. 2787/12-5-600 (419)/81 dated 15-11-1997 under Section 7 (2) (b) of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by which earlier notification dated 9-3-1981 was amended and "fruits" and "vegetables" were added as Items No. 42 to 84. The second prayer is that a writ of mandamus be issued restraining the respondents in causing interference or obstruction by restricting the transportation or movement of trucks and suspension or cancellation of licence or in any other manner in carrying on whole-sale trade of fruits and vegetables at `o' Block, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur by the petitioners.
(2.) IT is averred in para 3 of the writ petition that the Petitioner No. 1 is an Association of whole- sale sellers in fruits and vegetables, which has been registered under the Societies Registration Act. The members of the Association are registered proprietorships / partnership firms carrying on business of purchase and sale of fruits and vegetables. A list of the members of the petitioner Association is annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. In para 4, it is averred that the Executive Committee of the petitioner No. 1 has resolved to file the instant writ petition challenging the impugned notification dated 15-11-1997. At the time of commencement of the hearing, Sri B. D. Mandhyan learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that there are two writ petitioners namely (i) Aloo Phal Subzi Arhati Association, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act having its office at 30-F, 'o' Block, Subzi Mandi, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur and (ii) Sunder Fruits Co. and Court- fee of Rs. 200 only has been paid and therefore the writ petition cannot be treated to be on behalf of all the members of the petitioner No. 1 Association and they are not entitled to any relief until they themselves join in the writ petition and pay the requisite Court-fee. Sri R. N. Singh learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner No. 1 is an Association of "alo Phal Subzi Arhatis" which is a registered Society under the Societies Registration Act and the Association having filed the writ petition, it will inure to the benefit of its members and they are not required to either join in the writ petition or to pay separate Court-fee. The main question is whether in view of the facts and pleadings of the parties any order passed in the writ petition will inure to the benefit of the members of the petitioner No. 1, even though they have neither been impleaded by name nor they have paid any Court-fee.
(3.) SRI R. N. Singh has laid great stress on a Full Bench decision of our Court in Umesh Chandra Vinod Kumar v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, AIR 1984 All. 46, and has submitted that since right to relief arises from the same act or transaction and there is a common question of law and fact, a single writ petition is maintainable and only one set of Court-fee would be payable. The Full Bench decision is often cited where a large number of persons join together and pay a single Court-fee. The ratio of Full Bunch is not what has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. In all five questions of law, were referred for consideration by the Full Bench. The Question Nos. 1 and 2 were as follows: " (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? (2) Whether a single writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable on behalf of more than one petitioners, not connected with each other as partners or those who have no other legally subsisting jural relationship, where the questions of law and fact involved in the petition, are common?" The answers to these questions were given in paras 20 to 23 of the reports which is being reproduced below: " (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 of 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 authorise 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. (21) 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. (22) This is our answer to Question No. 1. Question No. 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 legal subsisting jural relationship where the questions of law and facts involved in the petition are common? (23) It will be seen that this question raises the issue of maintainability on ground of joinder or misjoinder of petitioners. Question No. 1, on the other hand, raised the point about locus standi or standing. The concept of locus standi is different and distinct from the question of joinder of parties. The former relates to the right of a person to approach the Court; that latter to join with others in approaching the Court. One may not be confused with the other. " (Emphasis supplied)";