TRIPURA BAR ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition filed by the Tripura Bar Association is directed against the Notification No. F.5(7)-REV/87 dated 5.2.2002 issued by the Revenue Department, Govt of Tripura by which the Advocates even if they enroll themselves as a Member of the Bar Council, are not allowed to practice deed writing without obtaining deed writing licence from the competent authority. The Bar Association also challenges the vires of Tripura Registration (Amendment) Rules, 1989 which are framed under Section 69 (bb) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.

(2.) Heard Mr. D.K Biswas, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner -Bar Association. I have also heard Mr. B.R. Bhattachajree learned senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Deb and Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) At the very outset, Mr. B.R. Bhattacharjee, learned senior Counsel for the respondents has raised preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the Tripura Bar Association is an unregistered association and this association, which is not a legal entity, cannot sue in its name. Thus, according to the Counsel for the respondent, the writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this score alone at the very threshold. The learned Counsel for the respondents further submits that where a number of individual are affected by an official act, they can ordinarily bring a legal proceeding to challenge that act only if such persons are joined together in the proceeding by name and that in case all the members of the Tripura Bar Association are adversely affected by the impugned notification, they ought to have joined in the writ petition by named. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the respondents cited the following cases, namely, (1) All Manipur DIC Supervisor's Association v. State of Manipur (2000) 1 GLR 355 (2) Vinoy Kumar v. State of U.P. (2001) 4 SCC 734 (3) Zila Dastavej Lekhak Assn. v. State of U.P. (1996) 8 SCC 441 (4) Lingappa Pochanna v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1985 SC 389.