Anil K.Narendran, J.

The petitioner is stated to be a welfare association representing the managements of Self-financing Arts and Science Colleges in Kerala, having registration under the Travancore-Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. The petitioner has filed this writ petition mainly seeking an order allowing the members of the petitioner Association to make admission to the seats, over and above the seats allotted in the 1st and 2nd allotment conducted as per Ext.P2 schedule for the Centralised Allotment Process for undergraduate courses-2016. The reliefs sought for in the writ petition are as follows;

(i) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the respondents are not entitled to enforce the Centralized Allotment process into the members of the petitioner Association over and above the 2nd allotment and quash Ext.P2 to the extent of insisting Centralised Allotment Process for Undergraduate Courses in private self financing unaided colleges under the 1st respondent University over and above the 2nd allotment.

(ii) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction allowing the members of the petitioner Association to make admission to the seats, over and above the seats allotted in the 1st and 2nd allotment as per Ext.P2.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for M.G. University, representing respondents 1 and 2, and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 3rd respondent State, on the question of maintainability of the writ petition.

3. In State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Dev (AIR 1964 SC 685) a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that, though the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is wide, the concluding words of that 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. Para.8 of the judgment reads thus;

"8. .... Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of the High Court is undoubtedly very wide. Appropriate writs can be issued by the High Court under the said article even for purposes other than the enforcement of the fundamental rights and in that sense, a party who invokes the special jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is not confined to cases of illegal invasion of his fundamental rights alone. 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. ....... "

4. In Vinoy Kumar v. State of U. P. (2001 (4) SCC 734) the Apex Court held that, 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. It 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 injury at the instance of third party where there is an effective legal aid organisation which can take care of such cases. Para.2 of the judgment reads thus;

"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 ap