ASIS DUTTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The six petitioners in this writ petition have raised the following issues: (i) whether the notification of the State Goverment No. 6715 dated December 21, 2000 issued under section 5(2) of the W.B. Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1972 constituting the market committee for the area mentioned therein conforms to section 5(1) of the Act; (ii) whether the notification of the State Government No. 6717 dated December 21. 2000 issued under section 4(1) of the same Act declaring the localities specified therein as the principal market yard and the sub-market yards conforms to provisions in section 2(m) of the Act, (iii) whether the notification of the State Government dated February 1, 2002 issued under section 5(3) of the same Act constituting the market committee conforms to provisions in section 5(3) of that Act, (iv) whether, assuming the market committee was duly constituted, it is empowered to function beyond the period of three years specified in section 5(7) of that Act, and (v) whether without initiating any adjudication proceedings the market committee was empowered to levy fees from the petitioners who never admitted their liabilities.

(2.) I find that the first petitioner is the vice president of a society registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961. Question has arisen whether for the above-noted purposes the first petitioner has any right to approach the writ Court. Counsel says that the society intended to expouse the cause of its members some of whom are the remaining petitioners in the case.

(3.) In my view, not being a juristic person or a person aggrieved by any action taken by the responsents against it, the society is not entitled to approach the writ Court for the above-noted purposes. It would have been entitled to sue through its office bearer concerned, had the respondents in the writ petition or any one of them taken any action against the society. That is not the case. Hence, I hold that the first petitioner, or for that matter the society, is not entitled to maintain the writ petition, though it is maintainable at the instance of the other petitioners.