D. V SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONERS are organisations in the nature of Associations. First petitioner is Indian Medical Association, second petitioner is Private hospitals and Nursing Home Association and the 3rd petitioner is karnataka Private Medical Establishments Association. Petitioners claim to be aggrieved by the description attributed to the activities of managing the Hospitals, Nursing Homes and Diagnostic Centres by calling it a trade and compelling them to obtain what is known as "trade licence" as envisaged in Section 353 of the Karnataka Municipal corporations Act, 1976 read with Schedule X to the Act. ( 2 ) SRI D. V. Joga Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that it is not so much of importance for the payment of fee required to be paid for obtaining a licence nor the requirements of obtaining a licence to carry on the activities and in running private Hospitals, Nursing Homes etc. , but it is the description of the name of the licence called as "trade licence" and bracketing the services rendered by such organisations amongst other things particularly traders that has given cause for the petitioners to present these writ petitions. ( 3 ) IF the submission on behalf of the petitioners has to be appreciated then the petitioners are offended by the description which in the submission of the learned Counsel is not befitting the noble and honourable profession of Medicine practised by the members of the petitioner-Associations. ( 4 ) IT is not disputed that what has been provided in the notification dated 17-9-1997 is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, i. e. , section 353 nor the publication by the Commissioner particularly Entry 74 with the heading Hospitals-Nursing Homes-Diagnostic centres, by which publication these additional types of activities are in Schedule X to the Act is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 353 (2) of the Act. In fact petitioners by themselves are not persons who are required to obtain such licence as they do not carry on the activities mentioned in Entry 74 of the notification adding new trades to Schedule x. Submission of the learned Counsels for the petitioners is that members of these Associations are affected. Actual persons who can feel aggrieved by the requirement of taking out a trade licence are not before this Court. Actual persons who can feel aggrieved by the requirement of taking out a trade licence are not before this Court. This apart, a mere description of the necessity to obtain a permission or a licence as a "trade licence" is not one which can affect the rights of any person much less a non-citizen, non-natural person like the petitioners. Petitioners are really not even persons who are affected by the notification or the description as "trade licence". ( 5 ) IN fact neither in the Act nor in the Schedule nor even in the notification the phrase "trade licence" is mentioned. The language of section 353 says that no place within the limit of the City shall be used for any purpose mentioned in Schedule X without a licence obtained from the Commissioner and except in accordance with the conditions specified therein. ( 6 ) SCHEDULE X contains various activities which are subject to licence to be issued under Section 353. By the notification the activities of keeping and maintaining Hospitals, Nursing Homes and Diagnostic laboratories are also added in Schedule X to the Act. It is obvious that in respect of these activities also if the activities are carried on within the Corporation limit, persons responsible should obtain a licence for such purpose. ( 7 ) HOWEVER Sri Joga Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that in an advertisement/publicity material that has been issued by the very Corporation itself it is described such licence are trade licences and that is really offensive to the members of the Association and as such petitioners are before this Court. A matter of status is not a subject-matter for issue of a writ. Whether the requirements of the law infringes any of the rights of the petitioners or is in contravention of any statutory provisions is the only question that can be examined in a writ petition. If the grievance of the petitioners is viewed from this angle, it is only the imagination of the petitioners that they are affected but not a legal reality. Such imaginary grievances cannot be made subject-matter for issue of any writ by this Court in exercise of the power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 8 ) PETITIONERS are not even medical practitioners by themselves who were complaining of any difficulties for obtaining such a licence. Such imaginary grievances cannot be made subject-matter for issue of any writ by this Court in exercise of the power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 8 ) PETITIONERS are not even medical practitioners by themselves who were complaining of any difficulties for obtaining such a licence. In the circumstances no grounds are made out for entertaining these writ petitions. Writ petitions are rejected.