1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11/8/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.8999 of 2011 Dhanam ..Petitioner Vs 1. The District Collector Madurai District. 2. The District Manager Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd Madurai District, Madurai. ..Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to shift the TASMAC retail vending shop No.5131 situated in the Bharathiyar Main Road, K.Pudur, Madurai to any other place. For Petitioner : Mr.Anand For Respondents : Mr.M.Muniasamy ORDER In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the averments are to the effect that location of the shop at No.5131 in Bharathiyar Main Road, K.Pudur, Madurai, would affect the interest of the public and children. The writ petition filed by the person can be entertained only if he is personally aggrieved. When a person can be said to be an aggrieved person has been explained in the following judgments: (i) At paragraph No.2 of the Judgement in Vinoy Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2001 SC 1739, the Apex Court has held as follows: "Para-2: Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The exception to the general rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of habeas corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest. Fit is a matter of prudence, that the Court confines the exercise of writ jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or legal injuries caused to a particular person or his fundamental rights are violated, and not to entertain cases of individual wrong or inquiry at the instance of third party where there is an effective legal ad organization which can take care of such cases. Even in cases filed in public interest, the Court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined class of persons is, by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 reason of poverty, helplessness, or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the Court for relief." (ii) Yet another decision considered by the Apex Court in Nadar Mahajana Sangam's case is State of Orissa Vs. Ram Chandra Dev and another, AIR 1964 SC 685, where the Supreme Court has held as follows: "But though the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.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 legally invaded or threatened. The existence of a right is thus the foundation of a petition under Article 226". (iii) In Gadde Venkateswara Rao Vs.Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1966 (2) MLJ (SC) 87: 1966 (2) An.W.R.(SC) 87: AIR 1966 SC 828 (vide para.8) the Supreme Court has held as follows: "The right that can be enforced under Article 226 also shall ordinarily be the personal or individual right of the petitioner himself though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto this rule may have to be relaxed or modified." (iv) Finally, after considering the legal principles, the Division Bench of this Court in Nadar Mahajana Sangam, Madurai through its General Secretary (For and on behalf of Shareholders of Tamilnadu mercantile bank Ltd.) Vs. Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, Department of Banking Operation Development Centre-I, World Trade Centre, Cuffee Parade, Bombay and others reported in 2006 (1) CTC 776, at Paragraph No.8, has held as follows: " 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 filed 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." 2. In view of the above, there are no merits in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (C.O.) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Madurai District. 2.The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Madurai District. mvs akm/17.08.11 /2p-3c/ W.P.(MD) No.8999 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/