Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J. - (1.) This writ application was filed by three different Associations on behalf of its members against the Notification No. 443, published in the Calcutta Gazette in its Extraordinary isssue by Calcutta Port Trust on 10th March, 1988 whereby the dock permit fees was enhanced from Rs. 20.40 to Rs. 1,000 per annum per vehicle. The petitioners claimed to be the Associations of the operators of the lorries and trailors operating in Calcutta Port. In this writ application, a preliminary objection was raised as to the maintainability of the writ application at the instance of the petitioners inasmuch as, the petitioners are Societies who had filed writ application for the benefit of all its members.
(2.) With regard to the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ application raised by the Respondents Mr. Arun Prokash Sircar Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the writ petition was moved by the Sand Carrier's Owners' Union represented by Jata Sankar Tewari General Secretary, Kidderpore Lorry Owners' Association represented by Raj Kishore Singh and Strand Road Lorry Owners' Association represented by Md. Idris, General Secretary of the said Association. It is stated that Kidderpore Lorry Owners' Association is not a registered body. It was submitted by Mr. Sircar that the concept of rights of individual viz-a-vis rights of the Association as a collective body has undergone a sea of change and in this connection, reliance was placed to the observation made by Justice Krishna Iyer in the case of Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karmachari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India, reported in 1981(1) S.C.C. page 246 at para 62. "A technical point is taken in the counter-affidavit that petitioner 1 is an unrecognized Association and therefore, the petitioner to that extent, is not sustainable. It has to be overruled. Whether the petitioners belong to a Recognised Union or not, the fact remains that a large body of persons with a common grievance exists and they have approached this Court under Article 32. Our current processional jurisprudence is not of individualistic Anglo-Indian mould. It is broad based and people oriented, and envisions access to justice through 'class actions' 'public interest litigation and representative proceedings". Indeed, little Indians in large numbers seeking remedies in Courts through collective proceedings, instead of being driven to an expensive plurality of litigations. Is an affirmation of participative justice in our democracy. We have no hesitation in holding that the narrow concept of 'cause of action' and 'person aggrieved' and individual litigation is becoming obsolescent in some jurisdictions. It must fairly be stated that the Learned Attorney-General has taken no objection to a non-recognised Association maintaining the writ petitions." It was further submitted that by the impugned action on the Calcutta Port Trust, all members of the petitioners Association have been affected and as such the said Association could represent its members in a representative bodies to ventilate their common grievance in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was further submitted that in the case of Howrah Wholesale Fish Traders' Association which was a society registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act. It was submitted that the right to form Association is guaranteed in Article 19(1) (c) of the Constitution of India.
(3.) It was further submitted that Section 19 of the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961 provides that every society may sue or may be sued in the name of the President, Secretary or any office bearer authorised by the governing body in this behalf.;