Locus standi to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited to individuals whose legal or fundamental rights have been infringed.

S.K. Keshote, J.- Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner appellant and perused the entire record of the writ petition, special appeal and the order of the learned Single Judge, impugned therein.

2. The appeal was admitted on 23.04.1997; the stay application, filed therewith, was rejected vide

order dated 110.1998 and that reads as under:-“We see no reason to grant an order of stay in favour of the petitioner. Hence the application for stay is rejected and the Counsel for the appellant is at liberty to request before the appropriate Bench for early hearing.”

3.In the writ petition the petitioner appellant challenged the orders Exhibits-7, 8 and 9. The

prayers made in the writ petition read as under:-“(i) quash and set aside the communication/direction/order dated. 010.1991 (Annexure-7).

(ii) quash and set aside the communication/order/direction dated 212.1991 (Annexure08);

(iii) toquash and set aside Form No. XI seeking declaration under Rule 58(1) of the Rules, (Annexure-9);

(iv) to declare that the respondents and their agencies have no power or authority or competence to demand the difference of market fee between Re. 1.60 and Re. 1.25 per 100 rupee worth of agricultural produce on existing stock on 010.1991;

(v) to restrain the respondents and their agencies to demand and recover difference of market fee between Re. 1.60 and Re. 1.25 per 100 rupee of worth agricultural produce on existing stock on 010.1991 from the members of the petitioner as detailed in Annexure-3;

(vi) to declare that under the scheme of one point payment of Mandi fee effective from 010.1991, difference of Mandi fee is not payable;

(vii) to declare the increase at Mandi fee on ‘Zira’ and ‘Isabgol’ @ Re. 1.60 per 100/-rupee worth as illegal and unconstitutional;

(viii) anyother beneficial order which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances may be passed in favour of the petitioner;

(ix) costs of writ petition be allowed;”

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner appellant does not dispute that by the impugned order none of the legal or fundamental rights of the petitioner appellant has been infringed. The writ petition is filed for the benefits of the members of the petitioner appellant. Leaving apart the ground given for rejection of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge we are satisfied that it is not a fit case where any relief , as prayed for by the petitioner appellant in the writ petition filed by it for the benefits of its members, is to be granted.

5. It is not gainsay that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, only a person whose any legal or fundamental right has been infringed, has a locus standi to file the writ petition. However, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, at the instance of the Association or the Trade Union or the Federation is entertained but only in case it is filed for enforcement of any of the legal or fundamental rights or for some other benefits of the poor or downtrodden or illiterate persons who are not aware of their legal and fundamental rights and further an oppressed class not in a position to bear the litigation expenses.

6. Here, the members of the petitioner appellant Association are traders; there are well to do literate and in a position to protect their legal and fundamental rights; they can file the writ petition and bear the expenses on its filing.

7. In this matter the stay has not been granted meaning thereby the orders challenged in the writ petition, are in operation for all these years. It is not the case of the petitioner appellant that after dismissal of the writ petition and after dismissal of the stay application in this appeal, the traders have filed any writ petition. The fact that traders have not filed any writ petition despite of dismissal of the stay application, goes to show that they are not aggrieved of these orders.

8. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal and acc