The term "body corporate" or “corporation” includes a company incorporated outside India, but does not include—(i) a co-operative society registered under any law relating to co-operative societies; and (ii) any other body corporate (not being a company as defined in the Companies Act 2013), which the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf.
-Section 2(11), The Companies Act, 2013
In Bihar Rajya Panchayat Sachiv Sangh vs. The State of Bihar (2026), the registry of Patna High Court has cited a Rule to raise an objection which reads:”All the members of Bihar Rajya Panchayat Sachiv Sangh/petitioner may be made party accordingly, court fee and w.s may be filed.”W.S refers to Welfare Stamp. In his order dated September 21, 2026, Justice Anshuman granted two weeks’ time "to remove the defect as pointed out by the Office or to take steps to contest the defect, failing which the present writ application stands rejected without further reference to a Bench. 3. As such, put up this case on 06/10/2026 under appropriate heading." The Bihar Rajya Panchayat Sachiv Sangh is a recognised association under Bihar Sarkari Sevak (Seva Sanghon Ko Manyata) Niyamawali, 1960 framed by a notification dated July 20, 1960. The Bihar Sarkari Sevak (Seva Sanghon Ko Manyata) Niyamawali, 1960 or Bihar Government Servants (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1960 deal merely with the recognition of service associations. The State of Bihar had issued the notification in purported exercise of its power conferred upon it under Article-309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 4 of the said Rules lays down condition for recognition of service association and Rule 5 lays down the conditions subject to which the recognition is granted. It is patent that a legal proceeding can be maintained only by an individual or other body which is recognised as a legal person.
It is apparent that Bihar Rajya Panchayat Sachiv Sangh is not an incorporated body but it relies on the fact that it has been ‘recognised’ by the State Government according to the Bihar Government Servants (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1960 made in exercise of powers conferred by Article 309 of the Constitution "Recognition, however, gives an employees' association only a status in its relationship and dealings with the employer i.e the Government. It has nothing to do with the representation of its members in a litigation before a Court of law." In Director General Ordnance Factories Employees' Association vs. Union of India & Or.s (1986) AIR 1969 CAL 149, Calcutta High Court observed:"9. 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. But an unincorporated association has no legal personality and it is nothing but an aggregation of its members who can only bring legal proceedings in their individual capacity. Even when all of them are affected by an official act, they can challenge that only if all the members loin in the proceedings by name; the association, in such a case, cannot maintain an application under Article 220 or other legal proceeding, in its own name, as has been established by a number of decisions (Indian Sugar Mills Assocn. v. Secy. to Govt. U. P. Labour Dept. (FB); General Secy. Eastern Zone Insurance Employees' Assocn. v. Zonal Manager. Eastern Zone Life Insurance Corporation and even registration under the Societies Registration Act cannot confer this right. (Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14). 10. To the foregoing general rule, certain exceptions have been introduced by the provisions of certain special statutes, e.g.,--(i) A registered union is made a body corporate by Section 13 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, and is empowered to sue and be sued in its own name. (ii) Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, an association of workmen has a right to raise industrial disputes and to represent the workmen throughout the proceedings (Ramprasad v. Chairman. Industrial Tribunal, Patna ) and can thus move against an award under the Act (W. B. P. W. Union v. A. U. P. Works, Private Ltd. ). (iii) Under Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, even an unincorporated association can make a representation in the matter of grant of a permit and can pursue that right in a proceeding under Article 226 (Sabitri Motor Service v. Asansol Bus Assocn (SB))."
It added:"15. Even where an association is permitted by law to bring a legal proceeding, it can bring an application under Article 226 only when its rights as a collective body as distinguished from the aggregate rights of its members are affected by the act challenged in the proceedings (Chiranjit Lal v. Union of India. ; Govt. Press Employees' Assocn. v. Govt. of Mysore, AIR 1962 Mys 25; Barrackpore Bus Syndicate v. Serajuddin , e.g., where it is already a party to the impugned order, as in)." But if the collective existence or interests of the association as such is affected, an association is permitted by law to bring a legal proceeding, it can bring an application under Article 226.
In S.P Gupta vs. Union of India, as reported in 1981 Supp SCC 87 : AIR 1982 SC 149, Supreme Court has held that poverty, helplessness and disability or social or economic disadvantaged position was considered a sufficient ground for maintaining the writ petition by persons other than aggrieved. The following criteria are to be kept in mind for the locus standi in such type of cases:—
(a) That the members of the said association should have sufficient strength so as to come in the category of a large section of public,
(b) That the members should be identifiable,
(c) That the members must be of the category of poor/illiterate/helpless or disabled.
(d) That the individual members must not be capable of filing a writ petition.
(e) That the entire body of the members must authorize the association to protect their legal rights:
(f) That such an association must have its own constitution, and
(g) That there must be authority to file a writ petition on behalf of all the members.
It is not clear as to whether Bihar Rajya Panchayat Sachiv Sangh has the authority to file this writ petition on behalf of its Members and in absence of such resolution. If there is no authority to file a writ petition on behalf of all the members, the petitioner has no locus standi to file this writ petition. The fact about registration of the petitioner has also not been stated in this writ petition and, therefore, this writ petition is not tenable in law. The mere fact of its recognition under Bihar Government Servants (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1960 does not make Bihar Rajya Panchayat Sachiv Sangh, a legal person. It has been held by the Allahabad High Court in Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, as reported in AIR 1984 All 46 (FB). At paragraph 20, it reads: “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 wayfarer or a busybody i.e it has a special interest in the subject-matter. (3) Where the rules or regulations of the association specifically authorize 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.15. It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of The R.S.E.B Accountants v. The Rajasthan State Electricity, decided on 30th June, 1995, as reported in 1995 (3) WLC 1 (Full Bench), that if all the conditions of clauses (a) to (g), as referred to above in the earlier paragraphs, are fulfilled, then only the unregistered Association can file a writ petition, otherwise such Association cannot file a writ petition, alleging breach of fundamental rights, as the Association by itself has no fundamental right of its own.
The same view has been taken by the Rajasthan High Court in Parents Teachers Association v. Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, as reported in AIR 2001 Raj 35.
This objection of the registry of the Patna High Court appears to be contrary to the observations of Supreme Court’s 3-Judge Bench of V.R. Krishnaiyer, R.S. Pathak and O. Chinnappa Reddy in Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railways) vs Union of India & Ors. 1981 AIR 298. Justice Krishnaiyer observed: “Our current processual 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.”
But this view and the earlier view taken by various courts in India that the registered societies were legal persons and they could sue or be sued in their own name; and that Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act was only an enabling (or added) provision to sue or be sued in the name of the president, secretary, etc..
It has been held in Shanti Sarup vs. Radhaswami Satsang Sabha, Dayalbagh Agra: AIR 1969 All. 248; K.C. Thomas vs. R.B. Gadaook, AIR 1970 Pat 163; Khiri Ram Gupta & Anr. vs. Nana Lal: AIR 1964 Pat. 114, Satyavart Sidhantalankar vs. Arya Samaj, Bombay : AIR 1946 Bom. 516; Nabadwip Bhajan Asram vs. Commissioner of Nabadwip Municipality: AIR 1959 Cal 361; Sonar Bangala Bank vs. Calcutta Engineering College: AIR 1960 Cal 409 that societies were legal persons does not hold good in the light of Unani Tibia College case, AIR 1962 SC 458, Illachi Devi case, AIR 2003 SC 3397, and Tata vs. Tata, AIR 2010 SC 2943.
In Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic & Unani Tibia College, Delhi vs. The State, AIR 1962 SC 458, it is held that the registration of Societies under the Central or State Societies Registration Act does not give the society a corporate status.
In Illachi Devi vs. Jain Society Protection of Orphans India: AIR 2003 SC 3397, it is held that a society registered under the Societies Registration Act as a society even after registration does not become distinct from its members and does not become a separate legal person like a company.
In n Vivek Narayan Sharma Vs. Union of India, 2023-3 SCC 1, the Court referred to its decision in Illachi Devi vs. Jain Society Protection of Orphans India (2003) 8 SCC 413, and "applied the plain meaning rule and held that said expression would not include a society registered under the Societies Registration Act as a society even after registration does not become distinct from its members and does not become a separate legal person like a company."
In Illachi Devi vs. Jain Society Protection of Orphans India, AIR2003 SC 3397, the Court held: i) The mere fact of registration will not make a society distinct from association of persons. (Para 20) ii) A Society registered under the Societies Registration Act is not a body-corporate as is the case in respect of a company registered under the Companies Act. In that view of the matter, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act is not a juristic person. (Para 21, iii) A society, whether registered or unregistered, may not be prosecuted in criminal court, nor is it capable of ownership of any property or of suing or being sued in its own name. (Para 22), iv) Vesting of property does not take place in the Society. Similarly, the society cannot sue or be sued. It must sue or be sued through a person nominated in that behalf. (Para 26). It has been held that a society or a club, both registered and unregistered, is the compendium of its members. When it sues or is sued all its members should be made parties. The registration of Societies under the Central or State Societies Registration Act does not give the society a corporate status. It has been held in Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic & Unani Tibia College, Delhi vs. The State: AIR 1962 SC 458. and Tata vs. Tata, AIR 2010 SC 2943. The common expression, ‘suit by or against a society’, legally and virtually denotes suit by or against its entire members.
Notably, a the writ petition, filed by the Judicial Officers' Association, Goa, was dismissed by Panaji Bench of Bombay High Court, as reported in (1996) 2 Mah LR 94 : (1997) 4 Bom CR 372 (The Goa Judicial Officers Association v. State of Goa), on the ground that it was not tenable at law, because the Members of the Association were capable of approaching the Court and while dismissing the said writ petition. At paragraph 27,29 and 30, it reads:“27. The Senior counsel Mr. Kakodkar, who is appearing for the High Court, has contended that a writ petition on behalf of petitioner Association is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because the petitioner is not the person aggrieved. In other words, he submits that the petitioner cannot identify itself with the grievances of its members. He has contended that even if the petitioner is a Corporate Body registered under the Societies Act, the petitioner cannot maintain a petition under Article 226 for and on behalf of its members. He has cited several decisions of different High Courts: (Madhav Janardan v. Shrinivas Narayan Naik) 14, AIR 1962 Mysore 26, (Director General Ordinance Factories Employees' Association v. Union of India and Director General Ordinance Factories) 15, AIR 1969 Cal 149, (Satyavart Sidhantalankar v. Arya Samaj, Bombay) 16, AIR 1946 Bom 516 and (Chanranjit Lal Chowdhury v. The Union of India) 17, AIR 1951 SC 41. We find considerable force in his arguments. A juristic person can maintain an action only when it is aggrieved or when its rights are infringed or violated by the action of an Authority. Here the grievance highlighted is that of the members and that grievance is that by the impugned Rules, the promotional avenues available to members of the petitioner's Association under the existing Rules have been taken away and, therefore, their chances of promotion have been in jeopardy. As we have already seen, that chance of promotion is not a right at all and, therefore, the members of the Association cannot have a legal right to maintain an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. Apart from that, the petitioner, as an Association of the Judicial Officers, cannot identify itself with the grievances of its members. The grievances of the members and the Association are distinct. This elementary principle has been stated by Salmond in ‘Salmond on Jurisprudence’. 12th Edition, at page 67, which reads thus:—“It is essential to recognise clearly that in neither of these forms of incorporation is the legal person identical with any single human being. A company is in law something different from its shareholders or members. The property of the company is not in law the property of the shareholders. The debts and liabilities of the company are not attributed in law to its members. The company may become insolvent, while its members remain rich. Contracts may be made between the company and a shareholder, as if between two persons entirely distinct from each other. The shareholders may become so reduced in number that there is only one of them left; but he and the company will be distinct persons for all that."
It added: "In the case of (The Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. The District Magistrate, Bangalore) 18, AIR 1951 Mys 14, the Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association filed an application before Mysore High Court against the District Magistrate, Bangalore and the Government of Mysore to cancel the order of the District Magistrate, Bangalore, notified in the Mysore Gazette on 10-11-1949, directing that all hotels, restaurants, milk bars and coffee clubs in the villages of the Bangalore District except those as are licensed by the Amildar of the Taluka under the Village Panchayat Act should be closed immediately. The hotel owners of Bangalore formed an Association and the said Association is said to have been registered under the Mysore Societies Registration Act, 1904. That Association challenged the validity of the Notification issued by the District Magistrate, Bangalore. A Division Bench of the Mysore High Court in the aforesaid decision in paragraph 5 of the judgment, held as follows:—“Mr. Venkataranga Iyengar contends that the Association is a corporate body and that it can therefore make such application to the Court in its own name. Under Section 7, Societies Registration Act, it is provided that a society which is registered under that Act may sue or be sued in its own name and for that purpose it may have a corporate existence of its own. And if there was any action or order by which the fundamental rights of the Association as such, say for example, under Article 19(b) or (c) or its rights of property or franchise were affected or jeopardised, it may be that such an application may be maintainable. But that is quite a different thing from saying that for some personal and individual grievance of some of its members the Association can agitate and apply for such extraordinary and discretionary writs which are clearly meant to prevent the taking away or abridging the fundamental rights conferred on individual citizens by Part III of the Constitution. Although no specific cases appear to have arisen on this aspect of the matter after the Constitution of India came into force we have some earlier rulings which are useful in deciding the matter”.
The Court noted that considering various decisions of the High Courts and Supreme Court on the subject, the Calcutta High Court in Sand Carrier's Owners' Union vs. Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta and others 19, AIR 1990 Cal 176, has held that the Company has no locus standi for the grievances of the petitioner. It held:—“Unincorporated associations are not legal persons and as such, writ petitions are not maintainable. An association could be formed to protect the interest of consumers, tenants or other groups with the common interest but such group cannot move writ application. No aspect of the representative law has been changing more rapidly than the law governing standing and the standing barrier has been substantially lowered in recent years, but on the basis of the law relating to standing as in England or in America as also in India, it can be held without any difficulty that the writ petition at the instance of an association is not maintainable where the association itself is not affected by any order. The members of such association may be affected by common order and may have common grievance, but for the purpose of enforcing the rights of the members, writ petition at the instance of such association is not maintainable. The door of the writ Court could be made open at the instance of persons or authorities under the aforesaid four categories and to hold that every Tom, Dick and Harry can move the writ application would render the standing requirement meaningless and would introduce a procedure which is not judicially recognised”. In this writ petition, the petitioner association of Judicial Officers of Goa. has not highlighted any grievance of its own, it has put up a grievance of its members. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior counsel Shri Kakodkar the petition is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner. Existence of a right of the petitioner is the foundation of the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 by this Court. The petitioner, even if it is a registered Association cannot identify itself with the grievance of its members and maintain a writ petition unless a statute provides for such a right as has been done by Trade Union Act Motor Vehicles Act. Industrial Disputes Act etc. Therefore, we have no hesitation to uphold the contention of Mr. Kakodkar that this petition is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner."
Given the fact that Bihar Rajya Panchayat Sachiv Sangh is a recognised association under The Bihar Sarkari Sevak (Seva Sanghon Ko Manyata) Niyamawali, 1960 or Bihar Government Servants (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1960 which deals merely with the recognition of service associations, not with incorporation, it cannot file a writ as a legal person unless all the members are impleaded.
