Relief can not be sought by third parties.

Srinivasan, J.

These writ petitions are filed as public interest litigations. The prayer in the first of the writ petitions is to declare that the resolution passed by the Madras Legislative Assembly on 4. 1987 is ultra vires of the Constitution, illegal and as such null and void. The prayer in the other two writ petitions is to declare that the order dated 23. 1987 of the Speaker of the Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly as communicated by letter dated 33. 1987 of the Com-missioner and Secretary to the Assembly to Mr.S.Balasubramanian, Editor, Ananda Vikatan is unconstitutional and consequently the resolution dated 4. 1987 of the Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly convicting and sentencing Mr.S.Balasubramanian as unconstitutional and void.

2. When the writ petitions were pending Mr.S.Balasubramanian himself had filed W.P.Nos.4202 and 4203 of 1987 challenging the validity of the resolution of the Assembly as well as the order of the Speaker and praying for compensation for the flagrant violation of his fundamental right in imposing rigorous imprisonment for three months on such terms as this Court may deem fit.

3. When the matters came before a single Judge of this Court, the maintainability of the above writ petitions was challenged on the ground that the petitioners were only third parties and the affected party having himself filed writ petitions for getting the necessary reliefs these writ petitions are not maintainable at the instance of the third parties. Learned single Judge thought that the questions which arise for consideration in these writ petitions as well as the writ petitions filed by the affected party S.Balasubramanian are of considerable importance and they should be decided by a Bench or if necessary by a Full Bench and place the papers before the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice constituted this Full Bench to hear the matters.

4. The third question referred to by learned single Judge which arises in these writ petitions only reads as follows:

‘‘Whether the individuals viz, M/s.P.Ramamurthi P.Manickam, N.V.N.Somu and the first respondent could question the validity of the impugned proceedings and consequently whether the writ petitions filed by them are maintainable? “ This question does not arise naturally in the writ petitions filed by Mr.S.Balasubramaniam. Hence, we heard the petitioners and the learned Advocate-General on this question in these writ petitions in the first instance as the learned Advocate-General raised the question as a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petitions.

5. Learned Advocate-General refers to some passages in the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.P.Gupta v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 149: (1982)2 S.C.R. 365: 1981

S.C.C. (Supp.) 87 and points out that the Supreme Court has very clearly laid down that in matters which affect individuals or a definite group of persons etc., the affected persons can alone seek relief in the court of law and not third parties. The relevant passages relied on by learned Advocate-General are as follows:

”The traditional rule in regard to locus standi is that judicial redress is available only to a person who has suffered a legal injury by reason of violation of his legal right or legal protected interest by the impugned action of the State or a public authority or any other person or who is likely to suffer a legal injury by reason of threatened violation of his legal right or legally protected interest by any such action. The basis of entitlement to judicial redress is personal injury to property, body, mind or reputation arising from violation, actual or threatened, of the legal right or legally protected interest of the person seeking such redress. This is a rule of ancient vintage and it arose during an era when private law dominated the legal scene and public law had not yet been born. .... .... But it must now be regarded as well settled law where a person who has suffered a legal wrong or a legal injury or wh