Appeal can only be filed by the person aggrieved.

The Hon’ble Chief Justice:

This Writ Appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 07.01.2005, passed in W.P.No.22674 of 2004.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record.

3. In our opinion, this appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of lack of locus standi. The appellant was not a party in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed by M/s. Apple FMCG Marketing Pvt. Ltd., which is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. The prayer in the writ petition was for a mandamus restraining respondents from interfering with the business activities of the petitioner – company in selling its products through its distributors by using the network marketing system. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned singe Judge by his order dated 07.01.2005.

4. The writ petitioner has not filed this appeal. Instead, it has been filed by an Association which claims to have been formed to redress the grievances of its members which are companies involved in the marketing of products and services using the medium of Multi Level Marketing, otherwise called Net Work Marketing. The association has alleged that it is registered as a society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act.

5. In our opinion, this writ appeal is not maintainable as the appellant cannot have any personal grievance in the matter, and at best only its members can have any grievance.

6. It is well settled that ordinarily a writ petition or writ appeal can only be filed by someone who is personally aggrieved.

7. In Indian Sugar Mills Association Vs. Secretary to Government, AIR 1951 All 1 a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court held (vide paragraphs 10 and 11): -

“Para-10: The further argument is that any person, whether his interests are directly affected or not, can file an application challenging any Act of the Legislature or the order of the Government on the ground that it is ultra vires. In this connection we cannot do better than quote the decision of the learned Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States in Commonwealth of Massachusetts V. Andrew W.Mellon, 262 U.S. 447:67 Lawyers Edn. 1078, Sutherland, J. who delivered the opinion of the Court quoted with approval the remarks of Thomson, J. with whom Story, J. concurred, which were as follows:

“It is only where the rights of persons or property are involved, and when such rights can be presented under some judicial form of proceedings, that courts of justice can interpose relief.”

Dealing with the question whether a single tax-payer can challenge the enforcement of a Federal Appropriation Act on the ground that it was invalid and would increase the burden of his taxes, the learned Judge observed:

“His interest in the moneys of the treasury-partly realised from taxation and partly from other sources-is shared with millions of others; is comparatively minute and indeterminable; and the effect upon future taxation of any payment out of the funds so remote, fluctuating, and uncertain that no basis is afforded for an appeal to the preventive powers of a Court of equity……If one tax-payer may champion and litigate such a cause, then every other tax-payer may do the same, not only in respect to the statute hereunder review, but also in respect of every other appropriation Act and statute whose administration requires the outlay of public money, and whose validity may be questioned. The bare suggestion of such a result, with its attendant inconveniences, goes far to sustain the conclusion which we have reached, that a suit of this character cannot be maintained.”

Para-11: Those remarks are with reference to a suit. They are much more applicable to proceedings under Article 226 which are of a summary and of a coercive nature without providing for a normal trial or a right of appeal except in those cases where a substantial question of interpretation of the constitution arises. This Court is being flooded with applications under