JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. When put in a narrow compass, the case of the writ petitioner emerges, thus : The writ petitioner is a Co-ordination Committee formed by the owners of buses of Dibrugarh and Tinsukia. The members of the said Committee ply their buses as permit holders of stage carriage. The said Co-ordination Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner-Committee') has authorized the convenor of the said Committee to take up the cause of the bus owners before various authorities. The buses of the members of the petitioner-Committee ply not only within the districts of Dibrugarh and Tinsukia, but also cover the districts of Jorhat and Golaghat. While plying their buses, the members of the petitioner-Is Committee are required to take their buses, through the State highways, to places like Namrup, Jaypur, Naharkatia and Duliajan and they are also required to stop their vehicles en-route, at different places, to enable the passengers to alight from their vehicles and to pick up new passengers into their vehicles. By the side of the highway, at Naharkatia, there is a strip of land measuring about 40 feet in length and 15 feet in breadth. There is no structure or any other facilities like water, sitting accommodation for passengers, waiting room, ticket-counter and/or lights for convenience of the passengers. Without having provided such infrastructure or facilities as indicated hereinbefore, the Naharkatia Town Committee (in short, 'the respondent Town Committee') has started collecting parking fees from the vehicles, which belong to the members of the petitioner-Committee. On making enquiry, the petitioner-Committee has come to learn that the respondent-Town Committee has appointed a lessee to collect parking fees from the users of the said land, which the members of the petitioner-Committee had already been using for a long time for the purpose of parking their vehicles : Having not provided any infrastructure or any facilities for the purpose of making use of the said plot of land as a public bus stand, the respondent-Town Committee is not entitled to collect any parking fees. This apart, under Section 68 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956, the respondent-Town Committee cannot impose any parking fee without prior sanction from the Government. This apart, under Section 68 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956, the respondent-Town Committee cannot impose any parking fee without prior sanction from the Government. However, since no sanction, in this regard, has been obtained from the Government by the respondent-Town Committee in terms of Clause (n) of Sub-section (1) of Section 68, the collection of parking fees is completely without jurisdiction and illegal. 2. The case of the respondents is, in brief, thus : The petitioner-Committee is an un-registered body and no writ petition filed by such an un-registered body is maintainable in law, particularly, when no right of the petitioner-Committee, as such, has been violated by imposition of the parking fees and the individual grievances of the permit-holders of stage carriage cannot be agitated by the petitioner-Committee. The writ petition is, therefore, not maintainable. This apart, when the petitioner-Committee is an un-registered body, this body is not in itself an aggrieved person and when no right of this body has been violated, this body cannot be said to have the locus standi to maintain the present writ petition on behalf of their members. 3. I have heard Mr. D.P. Chaliha, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Mr. A. Buragohain, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1. I have also heard Mr. B. Malakar, learned Counsel, for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 4. Since the maintainability of the present writ petition has been challenged at its very threshold, on the ground, that the petitioner-Committee, being an un-registered body of the permit-holders of stage carriage, has no locus standi to maintain the present writ petition, imperative it is to determine the question as to whether the petitioner-Committee has the locus standi as an un-registered body or an unregistered association of permit-holders of stage carriage to maintain the present writ petition. 5. The question, therefore, is this : Can an un-registered body or an un-registered association of permit-holders of stage carriage maintain a writ petition in respect of individual grievances of permit-holders ? 6. While considering the above aspect of the matter, one may take note of the law regarding locus standi as propounded in Vinoy Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in [2001] 2 SCR 1196, which run, as follows: 2. 6. While considering the above aspect of the matter, one may take note of the law regarding locus standi as propounded in Vinoy Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in [2001] 2 SCR 1196, which run, as follows: 2. Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned Order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interest have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The exception to the general rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of habeas corpus or quo warrantos or filed in public interest. It is a matter or prudence, that the court confines the exercise of writ jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or legal injuries are caused to a particular person or his fundamental rights are violated, and not to entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the instance of third party where there is an effective legal aid organization which can take care of such cases. Even in cases filed in public interest, the court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined class of persons is, by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief. 7. From a careful reading of what have been observed above, it is clear that except where a writ petition is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus or quo warranto or in the form of Public Interest Litigation, the writ jurisdiction can be invoked only on an application made by a person, who is personally affected or aggrieved. 8. In the case at hand, the present writ petition is not a petition for writ of habeas corpus or a writ of quo warranto nor it is a Public Interest Litigation. No right or interest of the petitioner-Association is also affected by the impugned levy of parking fees. 8. In the case at hand, the present writ petition is not a petition for writ of habeas corpus or a writ of quo warranto nor it is a Public Interest Litigation. No right or interest of the petitioner-Association is also affected by the impugned levy of parking fees. It is only the affected permit-holders of stage carriage, who could have, in their individual capacity, filed a writ petition and this is what is being sought to be done with the help of a writ petition, which has given rise to WP(C) No. 3889/2005, for, in WP(C) No. 3889/2005, a permit-holder of stage carriage is challenged the collection of parking fees by the respondent-Town Committee. The inevitable conclusion from the discussion, so held, is that the Co-ordination Committee of the Bus Owners of Dibrugarh and Tinsukia districts, being an un-registered association, cannot, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, maintain a writ petition. 9. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. 10. No Order as to costs. Appeal dismissed