JUDGMENT A.M.Sapre, J. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner who is a practicing lawyer under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court relating to what is known as Public Interest litigation (PIL ). In substance, the petitioner’s grievance in this writ petition is that there was one flying club – known as “The Assam Flying Club“ in Guwahati (respondent no. 4 herein) which used to provide flying facilities and impart training for becoming pilots, but for the reasons best known, since last few years, the club stopped its activities and wound up their activities for all practical purpose. The petitioner therefore filed this writ petition as PIL claiming following reliefs. “(1) To direct respondent 1 and 2 to constitute a committee comprising of experts in related fields to examine all aspects of the viability of the Club including its financial viability and to formulate a revival scheme for the club as an existing organization or its re-location and merger with proposed Aviation Manpower Training Institute at Lilabari, North Lakhimpur within a period of three months. (2) To direct respondent No.2 to submit a report on the progress in the implementation of the scheme to this Honorable Court, every three month till complete implementation of the scheme. (3) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus/order/direction directing to the Govt. of Assam to release fund to clear outstanding liabilities of the club and if necessary to move Ministry of DoNER for special Grants-in-aid.” So the basic grievance is against the closure of the flying club with a prayer to revive its activities. Heard Mr. NC Barooah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. B Goyal, learned counsel for the respondents. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the record of the case, we are afraid a petition of this nature can be entertained as Public Interest Litigation petition(PIL) under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for grant of aforementioned reliefs at the instance of one member of public who has otherwise no interest or locus in the internal affairs and activities of society/club. In our considered view, the petition does not involve any issue of public interest affecting marginalized groups of people and secondly the reliefs claimed in the writ petition are such that this court in its PIL jurisdiction may not be able to grant because as mentioned above, they do not affect public at large as a whole. The question as to whether any club engaged in any commercial activity which is registered as a Co-operative Society under the Assam Co-operative Societies Act (for short called The Act) should continue with their activities or they should close their activities and if so on what grounds and for what reasons are essentially for the members of the society to decide amongst themselves in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Societies By-laws and as per procedure prescribed under the Act. Any person from public (who is neither a member nor a shareholder and nor a contributory of such society) has any legal right to file a petition invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of PIL to claim mandamus against the society/club compelling them to start or/and revive their activities –he being totally foreigner unconnected with the internal management and affairs of such society/club. If he/they were enjoying the facility of the club in past and if the club stopped their facility then in such circumstances, their only right against the society/club would be to ask for refund of their deposit, if any, which they may have deposited with the club for availing of the facilities provided to them on payment and close the chapter. Since the petitioner is a practicing lawyer and does not claim to be the member/shareholder/contributory of the society/club, he has no locus to maintain the PIL to claim the aforementioned relief. This court cannot issue any mandamus directing the society/club to start/revive their activities. If the society/club want to revive and start their activities, it would be their prerogative and sole discretion. The court does not come in their way either. In any event, such issue does not attract any public interest as was laid down by the Supreme Court in several cases in last three decades and one need not cite them. In the light of foregoing discussion, we find no merit in this petition. It fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine.