M. H. S. ANSARI, J.

( 1 ) THE State Government by its G. O. Rt. No. 216, Revenue (Excise-II) department, dated 11-2-1994 sanctioned an amount of Rs. 3,06,50,000/- (Rupees Three Crores Six Lakhs and fifty thousand only) as Remission of Excise rentals for the months of October, 1992 and November, 1992 worked out on the basis of closure of arrack shops in the State. It is observed in the said G. O. dated 11-2-1994 that the anti-arrack agitation took a violent turn in October 1992 and reached its peak in November, 1992. As a result, arrack shops were forcibly closed during the period when Contractors were just commencing their business at the beginning of the Excise Year immediately after the auctions. The Contractors were persuaded to somehow continue their business on the promise of help subsequently. They had therefore continued their business. On a report submitted by the Commissioner of Excise, that the Arrack contractors affected by anti-arrack agitation have sought remission of rentals for the period of agitation, the demand of the contractors was examined by the Cabinet Sub-Committee and thereafter by the Government. It was decided to grant remission of rentals to the extent of 20% (. e. , l/5th) of the rental for the actual shop days for which arrack shops were closed during the months of October, 1992 and November, 1992 due to anti-arrack agitation. The government in its said G. O. Rt. No. 216, dated 11-2-1994 while granting the said remission also issued the following guidelines for the payment:" (A) In case the entire rentals and other Excise dues have already been paid by the licensees, the amount of eligible remission as recommended above may be refunded to the Contractors; (b) In case the rentals or other Excise dues are still due to the Government from the licensee, the eligible remission may be adjusted towards the rental and other dues and the balance may be refunded; and (c) the refund may be effected in two equal instalments. The first instalment may be paid after 1-4-1994. The feasibility of giving the second instalment of refund before 31-3-1994 in the form of N. S. Certificates may be examined by the Commissioner of Excise. "

( 2 ) THE Contractors Association - petitioner herein has filed the above Writ petition for a direction to the State to grant Remission of Rs. 34. 24 Crores in addition with the remission already granted by the Government in its aforesaid g. O. Rt. No. 216, dated 11-2-1994. According to the petitioners, an assurance was held out by the then Excise Minister that the Arrack contractors should continue their business and the Government would give them rebate of rentals based upon the closure of shops as reported by the local Excise officials. The petitioners claim that several arrack shops were looted and arrack was wantonly destroyed and the properties of the arrack contractors were also subjected to vandalism. According to the petitioners, the State Excise Commissioner issued instructions on 23-10-1992 for collection of 80% of the rentals from the arrack groups for the months of October, 1992 and November, 1992. The arrack Contractors expected that 20% remission of monthly rentals would be given through out the period from October, 1992 onwards. The Excise officials, however, forcibly collected the entire rental from October, 1992 onwards and the arrack contractors were forcibly made to lift the minimum guaranteed quantity of arrack. In some cases, Excise Officials also collected penal interest on the 20% shortfall of rentals for the period of October and November, 1992 and for delayed payment of rentals for the subsequent months during the Excise Year 1992-93. The Remission granted by the Government by the aforesaid G. O. Rt. No. 216, dated 11-2-1994, according to the petitioners is illusory besides being arbitrary and that the remission should have been given for the entire loss suffered by the Arrack Contractors and the collection of penal interest on delayed payments as also remission in rentals for the subsequent period for the whole Excise year 1992-93 should have been granted by the Government.

( 3 ) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise - 2nd respondent, it is stated that series of meetings and discussions with the Minister for Excise, Minister for Finance, Chief Secretary, Special secretary and Commissioner of Excise held from 10-10-1992 to 20-10-1992 with the arrack contractors association and it was decided that the Contractors should initially produce the Bank Guarantee for 15 days and on case by case basis, the rental that would have to be immediately paid by them will be intimated to Contractors in affected areas pending finalisation of the decision by the Government as to the nature of the relief to be granted to the licensees. Accordingly, instructions were issued on 23-10-1992 with regard to collection of rentals for the months of October, 1992 and November, 1992. The demand of contractors has since then been examined by the Sub-Committee and also by the Government and representations regarding the number of days the arrack shops were closed due to anti-arrack agitation were called for and the government decided to grant remission to the extent of 20% as per the aforesaid G. O. Rt. No. 216, dated 11-2-1994. The remission amounts so worked out have been either refunded or adjusted shop-wise in the respective districts by the district authorities concerned. It is specifically stated that the remission amounts eligible in each of the Districts have been worked out on the actual days of closure in each district and remission granted accordingly.

( 4 ) AN objection has -also been taken by the respondents to the locus standi of the petitioners association in filing the above Writ Petition and it is submitted that the above Writ Petition is not maintainable.

( 5 ) A perusal of G. O. Rt. No. 216, dated 11-2-1994 shows that in the Annexure to the said G. O. , a statement has been furnished showing the name of the district, the total rentals for the period October, November, 1992 and the amount of remission respectively sanctioned for each District which was affected by anti-arrack agitation. The Government has granted the remission on the basis of actual "shop days" for which the arrack shops were closed during the month of October, 1992 and November, 1992 due to anti-arrack agitations based on the reports of the Excise Superintendents of the Districts.

( 6 ) BEFORE we deal with the main contention as to whether the Writ Petition is maintainable by the petitioner association, it would be relevant to note that legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel were pleaded for grant of the relief prayed for. Reference was made by Sri P. Venugopal Reddy, learned senior Counsel for the Petitioners that in the G. O. Rt. No. 216, dated 11-2-1994, it is clearly mentioned that the Contractors were persuaded to somehow continue their business. It is their further submission that the then Excise minister had assured that the Contractors would be given rebate of rentals. The averment as made in the affidavit in support of the above contention reads as under: "the Government realised that their grievance was genuine and several meetings were held with the Arrack Contractors by the concerned officials of Revenue and Excise Department and the then Excise Minister. The then Excise Minister Sri K. Bapi Raju, assured the Arrack Contractors that they could continue, their business and that Government would give them rebate of rentals based upon the closure of shops, as reported by the local Excise Officials", (emphasis supplied) straightaway, it would be noticed that even according to the petitioners, the assurance or promise held out was that the Government would give the contractors, rebate of rentals based on the closure of shops as reported by local Excise Officials. The respondents have also submitted that the Remission has been granted based on actual shop days for which the arrack shops were closed due to anti-arrack agitation as per the reports of the Excise superintendents. There was no assurance or promise that there would be either total remission of rentals or that rentals would be remitted for the entire Excise year irrespective of the number of days the shops remained closed due to arrack agitation.

( 7 ) THE Cabinet Sub-Committee which was constituted for the purpose of considering the demand of the arrack contractors has in its report analysed the information regarding the number of arrack shops closed during October, 1992 and November, 1992 on account of the agitation from day to day, the concept of "shop days" was arrived at. The Cabinet Sub-Committee recommended remission of rentals to the extent of 20% (l/5th) of the rental for actual "shop days" for which the arrack shops were closed during the months of October and November, 1992 due to the anti-arrack agitation. Based on the said recommendation, the Government granted the Remission as per g. O. Rt. No. 216, dated 11-2-1994. It is significant to note that the petitioners have not questioned either the validity or legality of the said G. O. What is contended is that Remission should have been granted also for the subsequent months during the Excise Year 1992-93. There has been examination of the relevant facts by the Excise authorities as also by the Cabinet Sub-Committee constituted for the said purpose and the request of the Contractors has been considered in the light of the assurance given by the Government and the remission has been granted by the Government based on the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub-Committee. As regards waiver of interest on delayed payment of monthly rentals, the same was also examined by the Cabinet Sub-Committee and it was decided not to recommend any waiver of interest. Accordingly, the Government did not grant any waiver of interest.

( 8 ) IT must be noted here that under the A. P. Excise Act, 1968, under section 20, sub-section 3 thereof, it is laid down that the licensee shall not on account of the closure of his shop be entitled to any compensation except to the refund of such licence fee paid by him in respect of the shop as is proportionate to the period during which the shop is required to be kept closed. The claim of the petitioners in the instant case is not for refund of proportionate licence fee. The petitioners seek remission in rentals for which no specific provision is made in law. On the other hand, sub-section 3 of Section 20 lays down that licensee is not entitled to any compensation for closure of shops. The claim of the petitioners is thus based entirely on the basis of the assurance or promise held out by the Government and not on statutory provisions contained in the Act. The said claim has been examined by the Excise Officials, thereafter by the Cabinet Sub-Committee and based on the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub-Committee, the Government has granted the remissions. The Writ affidavit is bereft of any particulars of "shop days" lost to warrant any conclusions to the contra. The action of the Government does not therefore suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness.

( 9 ) AS regards the question of locus standi, the petitioner association has not stated as to whether it is a registered or an unregistered association. The cause espoused by the petitioner association admittedly is not one in the nature of public interest, but the personal interest of its own members that has been espoused.

( 10 ) IN the case of a Body incorporated by law, the Corporate Body acquires by law a legal entity or a legal personality of itself and by reason thereof is entitled to sue and be sued in its own name. But an un-incorporated association has no such legal personality or entity. 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 the same only if all members join in the proceedings by name. The Association, in such a case, cannot maintain an application under Article 226 of the constitution of India or other legal proceedings in its own name. Even where an Association i$ permitted by law to bring a legal proceeding, it can do so only when its right as a collective body as distinguished from the aggregate rights of its members are affected by the act impugned or challenged in the proceedings. This is because an incorporated or registered society or association has a distinct legal personality of its own with rights and capacities, duties and obligations separate from those of its individual members. It must, however, be clarified that there are certain exceptions to the above principles by virtue of special enactments themselves which enable or entitle such incorporated societies, registered unions or incorporated associations to maintain action including filing of applications under Article 226 of the constitution of India. To enumerate a few, Toddy Tappers Co-operative societies which by virtue of the Excise Policy are themselves licensees. Likewise, Fishermen Co-operative Societies and similar such societies who manage the affairs and business of the society on behalf of its members either as licensees or by statutory provisions. Another class is the registered trade unions and associations of workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act.

( 11 ) IN the instant case, the petitioner association is seeking to espouse the cause not of public interest, but the aggregate interest of its individual licensee contractor members. The Writ Petition in the circumstances is not maintainable on this ground also.

( 12 ) REFERENCE has been made to various decisions of the Supreme Court as also of this Court with regard to radical change undergone with respect to the concept of locus standi in recent times. It may not be necessary to refer to all such decisions as those cases pertain to and are in respect of public interest litigation and not in seeking enforcement of individual rights or aggregate of the rights of the members of such associations. It is needless to say that the dominant object of public interest litigation is to ensure observance of the provisions of the Constitution and of the law and for judicial redress for public injury to put the judicial machinery in motion, rules as to locus standi have been relaxed in appropriate cases and conferring the right of locus standi to any member of the public acting bona fide. The Courts have in cases where either individuals or associations or societies who came forward to expose a public wrong and sought for its rectification upheld the locus standi of such petitioners espousing a public cause. In the instant case, no public wrong is sought to be rectified nor observance of any provisions of the Constitution or any Statute are sought by the petitioners. The personal right of members of the petitioner association who are licensees under the Act is sought to be enforced for remission of rentals. The general rule of locus standi would be applicable to the instant case as it is one in the realm of a private litigation between the licensee and the licensor. No rights of the petitioner association itself have been either violated or infringed. The lis in the instant case pertains to the determination of legal consequences of past events pertaining to individual licensee contractor and are in the realm of private action unlike in the case of public interest litigation.

( 13 ) IN The Scholars and Teacher Action Committee (STAC) vs. Andhra University rep. by its Registrar, the question of locus standi of an unregistered association of Teachers was considered by a Division Bench and was upheld on the ground that the action was in public interest. Similarly, another learned single Judge of this Court in Andhra Bank Officers Union, Hyderabad vs. Andhra Bank and another, upheld the locus standi of the Union to maintain the Writ Petition on the ground inter alia that the Union came forward to expose a public wrong and sought for its rectification. The instant case is thus distinguishable on the very principles on which locus standi in the above cases had been relaxed and upheld on the grounds of public interest with regard to a public wrong.

( 14 ) IN the result, the above Writ Petition is dismissed. But in the circumstances without costs.