1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD)No.2230 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 Madurai Keela Avani Moola Veethi Central Market Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar Califlower Wholesale Merchant Association, Rep. by its Secretary R.Ashok, No.9/E, Kaja Street, Opp. Amirtham Theatre, Madurai - 1. : Petitioner Vs 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai. : Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner representation dated 18.12.2010 to allot shops to the petitioner's association within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court. For petitioner : M/s.V.Kannan For respondent 1: Mr.K.Balasubramanian Additional Government Pleader For respondent 2: Mr.M.Ravi Shankar Standing Counsel for Corporation ORDER The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would contend that the prayer in the writ petition seeking for allotment of shops for association cannot be maintained as per decisions of the Division Bench of this Court reported in (Formation of Indian Network Marketing Association, rep. By its President vs. M/s. Apple FMCG Marketing Pvt Ltd., rep. By its Chief Executive Officer and others) (2005) Writ Law Reporter 321 and (Tamilaga Asiriyar Kootani, rep. By the General Secretary V. Annamalai vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai – 9 and others) 2005 Writ Law Reporter 389. 2. In the decision reported in (2005) Writ Law Reporter 321 (cited supra) in paragraphs 10 and 14 the Division Bench of this Court has held as follows: "10. In State of Orissa vs. Ram Chandra Dev and Another, AIR 1964 SC 685 the Supreme Court observed (vide paragraph-8):- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 "But though the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is wide in that sense, the concluding words of the article clearly indicate that before a writ or an appropriate order can be issued in favour of a party, it must be established that the party has a right and the said right is illegally invaded or threatened. The existence of a right is thus the foundation of a petition under Article 226". 14. In our view, the appellant in this case has no grievance in the matter. At best, its members could have a grievance. It cannot be said that the members of the appellant - association are so poor that they could not individually file writ appeals. It is also not a case of the nature of environmental pollution or some great hardship caused to the public at large or a disadvantaged section of it (like prisoners, exploited women, children, etc.) regarding which Public Interest Litigation has been permitted by the Supreme Court. Hence, in our considered view, this writ appeal is not maintainable, as the appellant has no locus stand. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.A.M.Ps are also dismissed." 3. Similarly, in the decision reported in 2005 Writ Law Reporter 389 (cited supra) in paragraph 15 the Division Bench of this Court has held as follows: "15. In our opinion, if any educational institution or Head Master or Teacher is aggrieved by the impugned G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 9.2.2005 they can file a writ petition in this Court challenging the same, but the appellant - association had no locus standi in the matter. It cannot be said that the educational institutions or Head Masters are so poor that they are unable to approach this Court. If any particular educational institution or Head Master has a grievance against the impugned G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 9.2.2005 it is for such person to file a writ petition or writ appeal, and not for any association. The writ appeal is dismissed on the ground of lack of locus standi. The writ petition is dismissed for the same reason. W.A.M.P. No.1384 of 2005 is dismissed." 4. Ordinarily, it must be reiterated a writ petition can only be filed by someone who is personally aggrieved. In the case of Nadar Mahajana Sangam v. Reserve Bank of India reported in (2006) 4 M.L.J. 385, the Division Bench of this Court in paragraph 10 has held as follows: "10. The writ petition filed by the appellant cannot have any personal grievance in the matter and at best, only its members can have any grievance. It is well settled that ordinarily a writ petition can only be field by someone who is personally aggrieved. The powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be sparingly used and only in those clear cases where the rights of a person have been seriously infringed and he has no other adequate and specific remedy available to him. The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is based on the existence of a right in favour of a person invoking the writ jurisdiction. The exception to the general rule is only in cases where the writ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 applied for is writ of habeas corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest. Even assuming the members of the appellant's Association is affected by an act of the second respondent, but for the purpose of enforcing the rights of the members, writ petition at the instance of the Association is not maintainable. Ordinarily, the personal or individual right of the petitioner himself be enforced under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Merely because the first respondent/Reserve Bank of India has been arrayed as a party, the Court does not get jurisdiction to hear the writ petition since the main writ petition is against the second respondent, which is a private Bank." 3. In view of the above settled position, the Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai. +1CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SR.6238 +1CC TO MR.V.KANNAN, ADVOCATE SR.6174 +1CC TO MR.M.RAVISANKAR, ADVOCATE SR.6295 Srm SR : 25.04.2011 : 3p/6c Order made in W.P.(MD)No.2230 of 2011 11.03.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/