Judgment :- 1. This writ petition has been filed by the Perumbavoor Merchants' Association represented by its Secretary, and seeks a declaration that the respondents have no right to require the merchants dealing in piece-goods within the Municipality to take out licences for the same or to levy any licence fee from them; and an order directing the respondents to refund the licence fees illegally collected by them from the said merchants. The respondents are the Perumbavoor Municipal Council and the Commissioner of the Municipality. 2. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents that this writ petition is not maintainable by or at the instance of an association of persons. It is stated in the petitioner's affidavit that the Association is registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act 12 of 1953, that the Association is formed for safeguarding and promoting the rights of the merchants of Perumbavoor and for protecting their interests and welfare. Para.4 of the affidavit states that the merchants selling piece goods within the Perumbaboor Municipality and who are members of the Association were required to take out licences for the purpose and threatened with coercive steps on default. The frame of the petition is clear that the rights agitated by the Association are the personal and individual rights of merchants of Perumbavoor. 3. In Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal (AIR. 1962 S. C. 1044) speaking with reference to Art.226 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court observed: "The Article in terms does not describe the classes of persons entitled to apply thereunder; but it is implicit in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction that the relief asked for must be one to enforce a legal right. In State of Orissa, v. Madan Gopal,1952 SCR. 28: (AIR. 1952 S. C. 12) this court has ruled that the existence of the right is the foundation of the exercise of jurisdiction of the Court under Art 226 of the Constitution. In Charanjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India 1950 S. C. R 869: (AIR. 1951 SC. 41), it has been held by this Court that the legal right that can be enforced under Art.32 must ordinarily be the right of the petitioner himself who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the court for relief. In Charanjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India 1950 S. C. R 869: (AIR. 1951 SC. 41), it has been held by this Court that the legal right that can be enforced under Art.32 must ordinarily be the right of the petitioner himself who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the court for relief. We do not see any reason why a different principle should apply in the case of a petitioner under Art.226 of the Constitution. The right that can be enforced under Art.226 also 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." On the actual facts of the case, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner, the Calcutta Gas Company which was in charge under an agreement, of the general management of the Oriental Gas Company, for remuneration for a period of 20 years had certain legal rights which were abridged under the provisions of the Oriental Gas Company Act 1960, which was impugned by a petition under Art.226. 4. In The Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. The District Magistrate, Bangalore (AIR. 1951 Mysore 14), it was ruled that an association registered under the Societies Registration Act had no locus standi to make an application under Art.226 of the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the association itself. The principle of the above decision was followed in Government Press Employees' Association, Bangalore v. Government of Mysore (AIR. 1962 Mysore 25). In Indian Sugar Mills Association through its President Shri. Hari Raj Swarup . Secretary to Government, Uttar Pradesh Labour Department (AIR. 1951 Allahabad 1) the right to petition under Art.226 was denied to an Association registered under S.4 of the Trade Unions Act. These cases have been relied on by the counsel for the respondent. 5. For the petitioner, it was pointed out that the Association in the instant case has been given power by its bye-laws to institute suits on behalf of, or against, its members. My attention was drawn to sub-clause (9) of Bye-law 10 of the Bye-laws of the Association. These cases have been relied on by the counsel for the respondent. 5. For the petitioner, it was pointed out that the Association in the instant case has been given power by its bye-laws to institute suits on behalf of, or against, its members. My attention was drawn to sub-clause (9) of Bye-law 10 of the Bye-laws of the Association. The said bye-law vests the power of representation in suits in the executive committee; and under Bye-law 9, the executive committee is to consist of 21 members elected by the general body. Assuming that this Bye-law would make a difference in the present case as to which I express no opinion the present petition has not been filed by the Executive Committee. It has also been brought to my notice that at least a few writ petitions have been filed by individual merchants in this Court, for obtaining the relief sought for in this O. P. 6. I am satisfied that no personal or individual rights of the Association which is the petitioner before me are involved in the present O. P. I am further satisfied that the rights sought to be agitated are the personal or individual rights of the merchants trading within the limits of the Perumbavoor Municipality and that the same cannot be agitated in the instant case by the petitioner Association on their behalf. I uphold the preliminary objection and dismiss this writ petition. I express no opinion on the merits of the contentions urged. There will be no, order as to costs. Dismissed.