The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right enforced under Article 226 of the Constitution should be the personal or individual right of the petitioner, with exceptions for writs like habeas corpus and quo warranto.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 28th May, 2003, by which petitioner had been asked to vacate the Government accommodation as he stood transferred to other hospital and the said accommodation was required for the person transferred in his place.

( 2 ) FACTS and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner had been working in a hospital and he had been granted the residential accommodation for that purpose. Petitioner stood transferred to other hospital but he did not vacate the house and meanwhile proceeded to united State of America and he has not come back. Meanwhile, the impugned order of vacating the said residential accommodation has been served upon the petitioners mother, who had filed this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner. Without entering into the merit of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner issue of maintainability of the writ petition by the mother requires consideration.

( 3 ) THE issue of filing a writ petition through Power of Attorney-holder or someone else is no more res-integra as it has been considered by the Honble Apex Court time and again. In charanjit Lal Chowdhary v. Union of India and Ors. , AIR 1951 SC 41, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the legal rights that can be enforced in writ jurisdiction must ordinarily be the rights of the petitioner himself/herself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief. "the right that can be enforced under Article 226 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. "

( 4 ) IN the State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal, AIR 1952 SC 12, the Constitution Bench of the supreme Court held that the language of the Article itself shows that the issue of writs or direction by the Court is founded only on its decision that a right of the aggrieved party has been infringed.

( 5 ) AGAIN, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court considered this issue in Calcutta Gas Co. (Priprietory) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. , AIR 1962 SC 1044 and held that except in a writ of habeas corpus or quo warranto, the person can approach the Court only for redressal of his personal grievances.

( 6 ) IN State of Punjab and Anr. v. Suraj Prakash Kapur, AIR 1963 SC 507, the Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court observed as under :

"the existence of a right and the infringement thereof are the foundation of the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The right that can be enforced under Article 226 of the Constitution shall ordinarily be the personal or individual right of the applicant. "

( 7 ) IN State of Orissa v. Ramchandra Dev, AIR 1964 SC 685, the Constitution Bench of the supreme Court held that the concluding words of Article 226 indicate that before a writ or 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.

( 8 ) THUS, it becomes quite clear that a party can enforce its individual right through writ jurisdiction. While seeking issuance of writs like habeas corpus and quo warranto, there may be an exception.

( 9 ) IN Gaddie Venkateswara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. , AIR 1966 SC 828, the Honble Supreme Court observed as under :

". . . . . . . . . . that ordinarily the petitioner who seeks the filing of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution should be one, who has a personal or individual right in the subject matter of the petition. "

( 10 ) IN Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Hazi Bashir Ahmed and Ors. , AIR 1976 SC 578, nearly a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, while explaining the scope of the writ jurisdiction, emphasised that it can be resorted to only by an aggrieved person. The Court observe