:1: bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10281 OF 2009 Association of Thermal Paper Mfgrs. & Allied Industries ..Petitioner Vs. The Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.S.S.Kulkarni with Mr.M.V.Aiya for petitioner. Mr.M.I.Sethna, Senior Advocate with Mr.J.B.Mishra for respondents. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & K.K.TATED,JJ. DATE : 6TH APRIL,2010 P.C. Heard rival parties. Perused petition. This petition is filed by the Association of Thermal Paper Mfgrs. & Allied Industries seeking directions against respondent Nos.2 to 5 to seize all consignments of respondent No.6 and other importers, who are importing Thermal Sensitive Paper (“TSP” for short) from Sri Lanka under Classification 49.11 and clearing the same from different ports of India without payment of customs duties, excise duties and anti dumping duties with further directions to respondent No.2 not to release the TPS of respondent No.6 more particularly set out in the order dated 1st October, 2009 passed by respondent No.2 with further directions to respondent Nos.1 to 5 to investigate thoroughly all import of the TSP from Sri Lanka with further directions to consider the representations made by the petitioners. The petitioner association has also claimed injunction restraining respondent No.6 from using, selling and supplying TSP imported from Sri Lanka in Indian market. :2: 2. This petition was heard for admission along with Writ Petition No.8906 of 2009, wherein the petitioner had made an intervention application, which was rejected by this Court for the reasons stated in the judgment delivered on 6th April, 2010. 3. The petition as filed by the petitioner is liable to be rejected in limine for more than one reason. Firstly; the petitioner is seeking directions to seize all consignments of respondent No.6 and “other importers”. The petitioner has not disclosed as to who are the “other importers” in the body of the petition. None of them, other than respondent No.6, is a party to the petition. Behind their back, no directions or writ of mandamus much less as prayed can be issued. The petition is, thus, liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties. 4. The petitioner has also prayed for directions against respondent No.2 not to release TSP of respondent No.6 as set out in the order dated 1st October, 2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, CIU, JNCH. The said order could not be supported by the Revenue while it was under challenge in the Writ Petition No.8906 of 2009, with the result, the same was quashed and set aside in part while allowing Writ Petition No.8906 of 2009 vide order dated 6th April, 2010 filed by respondent No.6. In this view of the matter, the relief claimed by the petitioner via prayer clause (b) also does not survive. 5. So far as other reliefs claimed are concerned, the same cannot be granted in this petition, as this Court cannot issue omnibus orders to all the Ports in India to make enquiry about the alleged imports of TSP till now, with directions to submit report to this Court. One does not know how many persons must have imported TSP and how many Ports must have been involved in permitting such imports. In most of the cases the assessment must have been done. The Custom duty must have been recovered and goods must have been released. In absence of material facts and particulars in this behalf, :3: it is not possible for this court to entertain the prayer made by the petitioner on this count. 6. Apart from the above, even the petition filed on behalf of the Association, in our considered view is also not maintainable again for more than one reason. 7. Firstly, the question of maintainability of the petition at the instance of the Association is required to be considered on the general principles. In cases where the right of a collective body to bring proceedings under Article 226 is challenged to, two questions have to be answered:- (a) whether the petitioner is a legal entity or otherwise permitted by statute to initiate legal proceedings in its own name? (b) Has it been affected by the impugned order as a collective body ? So far as the first question is concerned, it is necessary to note that a legal proceeding may be maintained only by an individual or other body which is recognized as a legal person. In the case of a body incorporated by law, the corporate body acquires a legal personality of itself and is as such entitled to maintain legal proceedings, only when its rights as a collective body as distinguished from the aggregate rights of its members are affected by the act or omission of complaint in the petition. Otherwise, the association cannot maintain application under Article 226 or other proceedings in its name. (See : Charanjit Lal Vs. Union of India AIR 1951 SC 41). No right of the Association as collective body as understood herein is shown to have been breached so as to maintain petition at the instance of the present petitioner Association. On this count also the petition must fail. 8. Secondly, apart from the above, even the petitioner has not filed any resolution of its general body or Managing Committee permitting the President of its association to file such petition. The Society or Association speaks through its resolution. One does not know, whether the President or the Secretary is authorized to represent the petitioner Association. On this count also petition is liable to be rejected. :4: 9. Even otherwise, the petition has no merit. It is not a bona fide petition. The petition appears to have been filed out of business rivalry by the persons having hold on the Association. Needless to mention that authorities under the Act are bound to discharge their duty and statutory function. No specific instance is brought to our notice showing laxity on their part. Notwithstanding rejection of their petition, Authorities under Customs Act would be bound to look into the grievances made by the citizens if tenable in law and enforce provisions of the Act. No specific order in this behalf is necessary. 10. In the result, the petition is without any merit and the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (K.K.TATED,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)