D. S. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri K. M. L. Hajela, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Vinay malaviya. the learned standing counsel of the State of U. P. , representing the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. and Sri Vipin Sinha, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. ( 2 ) CAMPHOR Factory Karmcharl Sangh, Collector Buckganj. Barellly. a society registered under the Trade Union Act. professing to protect the interest of unidentified labourers employed in various unidentified factories, has approached this Court through Instant writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing the Government Order dated 6th december. 1995, published in Hindi Dally "amar Ujala" dated 16th December. 1995. a copy whereof is Annexure-8 to the petition. ( 3 ) UNDER the impugned Government Order. Camphor and Allied Products Limited. Collector buckganj, Bareilly, the respondent No. 4, an industrial establishment, becomes entitled to have the ownership of 96 tenements of the State of U. P. transferred in its favour. These tenements had earlier been allotted to the respondent No. 4, in block of 8 apartments, for the purposes of letting out to its workers. on the specified terms and conditions. The terms and conditions are on record before the Court as Annexure-C. A. 1, appended to the counter-affidavit of Sri U. P. Singh. filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4. ( 4 ) FROM the undisputed averments made in the counter-affidavit of Sri Sudhir Kumar Nigam, filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 following facts emerge : that about thirty thousand tenements were constructed by the State Government in different cities to provide accommodation to the industrial workers employed in the factories registered under the Factories Act. 1, 2 and 3 following facts emerge : that about thirty thousand tenements were constructed by the State Government in different cities to provide accommodation to the industrial workers employed in the factories registered under the Factories Act. 1948 ; that these tenements were constructed under the scheme envisaged under the Industrial Housing Act, 1955 and funded by the Central Government ; fifty per cent of the fund available by the Central Government was by way of loan and the balance fifty per cent was by way of non-refundable subsidy ; that in the scheme It was envisaged that subsidised rent would be charged from the factory workers occupying the tenements on different scales related to the structure of their wages ; that usually the tenements were allotted to the factory workers by the labour department of the Government directly ; that some times block allotment of the tenements were made in favour of the factory establishments praying for such allotment. In such cases, the agreement of allotment was made between the factory and the labour department of the Government on terms and conditions contained In the allotment order ; that the factory establishments were authorised to let out the tenements occupied by its workers on the rent fixed by the State Government and the factory was made responsible for realisation and payment of rent to the labour department ; that there are two types of the factory worker occupants of the tenements, namely, (i) occupying on the strength of allotment made by the labour department of the State of U. P. directly, and (ii) occupying on the strength of the allotment made by the factory establishment : that in the Instant case the factory establishment, namely, the respondent No. 4. allotted all tenements to the factory workers and they are occupying tenements on the strength of the said allotment and are entitled to continue to be in occupation during the tenure of their service. ( 5 ) THE State Government issued a Government Order dated 24th September, 1994, a copy whereof is Annexure-1 to the petition. This Government Order discloses that a policy decision was taken by the State Government to transfer the tenements constructed by it for occupation by the industrial labourers in various cities on certain conditions. ( 6 ) ANOTHER Government Order dated 21st February, 1995 was issued modifying the Government order dated 24th September. This Government Order discloses that a policy decision was taken by the State Government to transfer the tenements constructed by it for occupation by the industrial labourers in various cities on certain conditions. ( 6 ) ANOTHER Government Order dated 21st February, 1995 was issued modifying the Government order dated 24th September. 1994 and laying down further terms and conditions for the proposed transfer of the tenements. ( 7 ) FINALLY, the impugned Government Order dated 6th December, 1995 was issued. By the impugned Government Order the State has taken a policy decision to transfer in favour of the industrial establishments such tenements which were in block allotted to them. Further decision of the State of U. P, is that in case the industrial establishments fall to have the ownership transferred, the tenements may be transferred in favour of individual occupants on specified terms and conditions. The preference envisaged in the Government Order in favour of the industrial establishments and the possibility of transfer of the tenements in favour of the respondent No. 4 irks the petitioner. Hence, this petition. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel of the petitioner contends that the impugned Government Order giving preferential rights to the factory owners is unfair, inequitable and arbitrary. It violates the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is, therefore. Illegal. ( 9 ) REBUTTING the contention of the petitioner, the leaned counsels appearing for the respondents submit that the Government decision contained in the impugned Government Order is perfectly valid. According to them, it is a policy decision of the State and not open to challenge by the petitioner. Learned counsels also question the right of the petitioning Union to maintain this petition. Learned counsels assert that neither the petitioner nor unidentified factory workers whose cause it professes to spouse can be said to be aggrieved as the Impugned Government order does not Inflict any legally cognizable and judicially redressable injury. ( 10 ) IT is not disputed that the Impugned Government Order laying down the policy in respect of the transfer of ownership of the tenements in question was passed by the Government In exercise of its executive power and not in exercise of any statutory provision or statutory power. ( 10 ) IT is not disputed that the Impugned Government Order laying down the policy in respect of the transfer of ownership of the tenements in question was passed by the Government In exercise of its executive power and not in exercise of any statutory provision or statutory power. In its decision rendered in State of Himachal Pradesh and others v. Ganesh Wood Products and others, jt 1995 (6) SC 485, the Honble Supreme Court has clearly held that while "acting In its executive capacity, the Government is entitled to lay down policies and preferences In the interest of State. Its economy. . . . . The only obligation of the State in such an event would be to extend a fair and equitable treatment to all persons coming before it". ( 11 ) THUS. there was no impediment in the way of State Government taking policy decision by the impugned order in giving option to the factory owners in respect of transfer of ownership of the tenements in question. The only rider on such a decision, as pointed out by the Honble Supreme court, was to extend a fair and equitable treatment to all persons falling in a particular category. The Government Order confers benefit to all factory owners alike. The factory owners who are in block allottees of the tenements and the individual allottees of the tenements form two separate and distinct categories. The question of fair treatment has to be tested with reference to all the persons falling in one particular category. It cannot be tested with reference to the persons falling in two different categories. ( 12 ) THE learned counsel of the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate as to how and in what manner fair and equitable treatment was not extended to the petitioner. It has also not been demonstrated as to how and in what manner the Impugned Government Order does not extend a fair and equitable treatment to all persons falling within the ken of the Government Order. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner in this regard fails. ( 13 ) COMING to the objection raised on behalf of the respondents regarding the locus of the petitioner to maintain instant petition. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner in this regard fails. ( 13 ) COMING to the objection raised on behalf of the respondents regarding the locus of the petitioner to maintain instant petition. It is to be noticed that no where in the petition It has been pleaded as to, how the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned Government Order. The petition also does not disclose as to who are the actual employees of the respondent-factory and in what capacity they are occupying the disputed tenements. As noticed earlier, the tenements were in block allotted to the respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 4 allotted the tenements to its labourers for occupation in the capacity of licensee during the tenure of service. None of the real occupants of the tenements is before the Court. It is not the case of the petitioner union that the occupants of the disputed tenements are incapable of approaching this Court for redressal of their grievance. ( 14 ) EXISTENCE of legally cognizable and judicially enforceable right and invasion thereof or imminent danger tn that regard is a condition precedent for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No legally cognizable and judicially enforceable right and Invasion or Imminent danger in that regard having been demonstrated, the petitioner is held not to be entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, the petition is held to be not maintainable. ( 15 ) FOR what has been said above, in the opinion of the Court, the petition lacks substance. It is, therefore, dismissed. The Interim order/ orders, including the order dated 11th January, 1996, shall stand vacated. There is no order as to costs.