Judgment A.M. Sapre, J. This is an intra-court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of WP(C) No.5442/2013 under Rule 2(3) of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules against the order dated 27.3.2014 passed by the Single Judge in abovementioned writ petition. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner. So the short question, which arises for consideration in this intra court appeal, is whether learned single judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition. The issue involved in the writ petition out of which this appeal arises and now in appeal is a short one. The appellant (writ petitioner) is a NGO, which claims to be working for the benefit of persons belonging to SC/ST/OBC. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the certificate issued in favour of the respondent nos. 10 and 11 certifying therein that both (R-10 and 11) belong to SC/ST caste. In other words, the appellant’s challenge in the writ petition was to the status of SC/ST conferred upon respondent nos. 10 and 11 by the authorities concern. According to them, the respondent nos. 10 and 11 did not belong to SC/ST caste, yet both were able to obtain their caste certificates from the competent authority by fraudulent means and hence their certificates be declared illegal and bogus conferring no status of SC/ST on them. It is essentially this issue which was gone into and by order impugned, the writ court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the certificates. It is this order, which has given rise to filing of this appeal by the writ petitioner. Heard Mr. I. Alam, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. GN Sahewalla, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A Chetia, learned counsel and Mr. P Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in this appeal. One of the reason which persuaded to the writ court to dismiss the writ petition and to uphold the certificates in favour of respondent nos. 10 and 11 was that since the father of respondent nos. 10 and 11 belong to SC/ST caste and even the certificate was issued in his favour by recognizing his SC/ST caste, a fortiori, his sons were also entitled to claim the same status of SC/ST. 10 and 11 was that since the father of respondent nos. 10 and 11 belong to SC/ST caste and even the certificate was issued in his favour by recognizing his SC/ST caste, a fortiori, his sons were also entitled to claim the same status of SC/ST. We are in agreement with this reasoning of the writ court. If the father belonged to SC/ST category and his schedule caste status was duly recognized by the authorities concern then it follows that his children (sons/daughters) were entitled to claim the same status because they also belong to same family. It will be quite incongruous to hold that though father belonged to SC/ST caste but his sons/daughters belonged to other caste. It was more so when no challenge was made to certificate issued in their father’s favour. In our view, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on yet another ground though not raised by the respondents before the writ court. The writ petitioner, in our view, had no locus to file the writ petition to challenge the grant of certificates to two individuals (respondent nos. 10 and 11) by means of the writ petition under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. It was for the reason that they were NGO and none of their rights - whether fundamental, or statutory or contractual were violated as NGO due to issuance of certificate to respondent nos. 10 and 11. Had the writ petitioner been any individual, then perhaps, he could have questioned the legality and correctness of the certificates granted to the respondent nos. 10 and 11 by filing appropriate proceeding provided his right had been affected. Such was not the case here. It was not the writ petition filed in the nature of PIL and nor it could be filed in representative capacity to espouse the cause of several persons in the name of NGO to claim such relief. In view of foregoing discussion and looking the issue from any angle, we are of the view that writ petition was rightly dismissed by the writ court. We also find no merit in this appeal. It therefore fails and is dismissed in limine. No cost.