JUDGMENT 1. -This writ petition, under Article-226 of the Constitution, has been filed by Jawahar Nagar Nagrik Maha Samiti, Jaipur for mandamus directing the Municipal Council, Jaipur not to realise house tax from the petitioner-society and its members for the period prior to 1982. 2. Chapter-VII of the Raj. Municipalities Act, 1959 deals with imposition of taxes. Section 104 provides : "104. Obligatory taxes - (1) Every board shall levy, at such rate and from such date as the State Government may in each case direct by notification in the Official Gazette and in such manner as is laid down in this Act and as may be provided in the rules made by the State Government in this behalf, the following taxes namely : (1) a tax on the annual letting value of buildings or lands or both, situated within the municipality; (2) an octroi on goods and animals brought within the limits of the municipality for consumption, use or sale therein; and (3) a tax on professions and vocations : Provided that: (a) the tax under clause(1) shall not be levied : (i) on Kham houses or (ii) on buildings or lands or both, of which annual letting value is less than one hundred and eighty rupees. (b) the tax under clause(2) shall not be on a motor vehicle as defined in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939(Central Act IV of 1939) or any other mechanically propelled vehicle and (c) the tax under clause(3) shall not be levied on artisans : Provided further that, upon a representation made to it by and at the request of a board, the State Government if it is satisfied that circumstances exist which sufficiently provide the justification for a board not to levy, or to stop the levy of, any of the taxes mentioned in this section, may by special order published in the Official Gazette, alongwith the reasons for making such order, permit the board not to levy, or to stop the levy of any such tax. (2) A direction under sub-section (1) may provide for the levy of taxes at different rates in different municipalities having regard to their varying local conditions and needs, and on the same considerations and by a like direction, the State Government may, from time to time : (i) vary (uniformally) or differently in relation to different municipalities, the rates of taxes levied or (ii) withdraw any tax levied by any municipality." 3. The notification dated 10.11.1960 published in Rajasthan Gazette part VI-A dated 15-12-1960 is reproduced below : "In exercise of the powers conferred by Section-104 of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959' and sub-section 1 and clause (c) of Section 297(2), the State Government hereby directs with effect from 1st April 1960: (1) The rate of tax levied on the letting value of buildings and lands situated within the Jaipur Municipality shall be 61/4% of such value." 4. As a result of the aforesaid notification, the Municipal Council was empowered to charge house tax from the date of occupation/date of completion of building. 5. On 27th May, 1982, the roads and streets situated in Jawahar Nagar, Nahari Ka Naka and Lal Kothi areas were entrusted to the Municipal Council, Jaipur for maintenance. The said notification is reproduced below : dzekad 6 ( 48 ) ufovk 2@75 t;iqj fnukad 27-5-82 vf/klwpuk jktLFkku vkoklu e.My ,DV 1970 ( ,DV la0 4 o"kZ 1970 ) dh /kkjk 37 ( 1 ) ds vUrxZr jkT; ljdkj lUrq"V gksus ij jktLFkku vkoklu e.My t;iqj dh fuEufyf[kr cfLr;ksa dh leLr lM+dksa dks lkoZtfud ?kksf"kr dj muds j[kj[kko gsrq uxj ifj"kn~ t;iqj dks gLrkUrfjr djus ds vkns'k iznku djrh gS& ( 1 ) tokgj uxj ( 2 ) ukgjh dk ukdk ( 3 ) ykyk dksBh jkT;iky dh vkKk ls] g0 ( ts0ds0 tSu ) mi 'kklu lfpo 6. The petitioner-Society and its members thought that the house tax became payable by them to the Municipal Council under the aforesaid notification dated 27.5.1982 and that the levy of said tax for the period before 1982 was illegal. On that basis, the present writ petition was filed before this Court.7. The writ petition has been contested by the Municipal Council on the ground that the petitioner-Society has illegally and wrongly confused the notification issued in the year 1982 empowering the Municipal Council to realise house tax from the date of its issuance.8. On that basis, the present writ petition was filed before this Court.7. The writ petition has been contested by the Municipal Council on the ground that the petitioner-Society has illegally and wrongly confused the notification issued in the year 1982 empowering the Municipal Council to realise house tax from the date of its issuance.8. By the notification dated 27th May, 1982 the State Government in exercise of the powers vested in it under the Rajasthan Housing Board Act, 1970 entrusted the streets and roads situated in Jawahar Nagar, Nahari Ka Naka and Lai Kothi areas to the Municipal Council, Jaipur for control and maintenance. It has nothing to do with either the creation of a Municipal Council in Jawahar Nagar or conferment of right to levy house tax on the houses situated in the localities mentioned above. The Municipal Council was empowered to charge house tax from the date of occupation/date of completion of the building. This notification was issued in 1960.9. The learned counsel for the petitioner denied the responsibility of the residents of the Jawahar Nagar Colony to pay house tax for the period before 27.5.1982. This argument is based on mis-conception of the notification. It has nothing to do with the entitlement of the Municipal Council to levy or to realise house tax. Hence, his submission that the Municipal Council, Jaipur could not levy any tax on the houses of the aforesaid colony without the sanction of the State Government is in-correct.10. The learned counsel urged that the Municipal Council has arbitrarily increased the house tax recently and that the said increase is not justified under the Act. The submission is not correct. The exhorbitant' rise in house tax, liability as was submitted by the petitioner's counsel is not borne-out.11. Another question that come up for discussion in the instant case was whether the Society registered under the Societies Registration Act could file the writ petition.12. The rights that can be enforced, under Article 226, must ordinarily be the rights of the petitioner himself, except in the case of habeas corpus and quo warranto. In other words, the general rule is that the right which is the foundation of an application under Article 226 is a personal and individual right. The rights that can be enforced, under Article 226, must ordinarily be the rights of the petitioner himself, except in the case of habeas corpus and quo warranto. In other words, the general rule is that the right which is the foundation of an application under Article 226 is a personal and individual right. Hence, the existence of the legal right which is alleged to have been infringed is the condition precedent co the maintenance of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. A society has no legal right and hence it was not entitled to file the writ petition.13. The petitioner-society has no interest in the subject-matter and as such, not directly affected by the statute or the taxes imposed.14. In Full Bench decision in Indian Sugar Mills Assocn. v. Secy. to Government (AIR (38) 1951 Allahabad 1) , it has been observed that the powers under Article 226 should be sparingly used and only in those clear cases where the rights of a person have been seriously infringed and he has no other adequate and specific remedy available to him.15. The member of the petitioner-Society could individually institute' a suit and obtain the relief which was claimed through this writ petition.16. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******