JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioners claim to be registered association with J&K Transport Department under Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 read with Rule 180 and 181 of J&K Motor Vehicle Rules, 1991. Petitioner association is said to have initially comprised of 70 vehicles but with the passage of time, 34 more vehicles have been added to its fleet. In view of increase in number of vehicles, and due to paucity of place at Sumo Stand, wherefrom petitioner association is operating transport services and route from Kupwara to Khurhama and Warnow, on which the vehicles of petitioner association are plying, as averred by it in writ petition, petitioner association is now reluctant to grant membership to any new vehicle as the total membership of petitioner association has reached to number of 113. However, influential people, according to petitioner association, who purchase vehicles, force petitioner association to grant membership and when petitioner association decline, respondents use, by one or other means, to pressurise petitioner association, which affects earning of member vehicles of petitioner association and also creates indiscipline at the Sumo Stand in the main market of Kupwara because of huge rush of vehicles. Petitioners’ gravamen is that respondents are interfering with the working of petitioner association at Lolab Sumo Stand at Kupwara and respondents off and on visit the stand of petitioner association at Kupwara and ask petitioner association to vacate the space so that they can accommodate some other association or group of vehicles, which are neither registered with Labour Department nor Transport Department. On the edifice of case set up petitioner association seek following relief: (a) Writ of mandamus, commanding respondents not to vacate petitioner association from Northern Lolab Sumo Stand at Kupwara Town; (b) Writ of mandamus, commanding respondents to allow petitioner association to operate its services from Northern Lolab Sumo Stand at Kupwara Town without any interference; (c) Writ of mandamus, commanding respondents not to pressurise the petitioner association to grant further membership to new vehicles at Northern Lolab Sumo Stand at Kupwara Town. 2. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner states that the State and its instrumentalities within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India are duty bound to act fairly, justly and reasonably. 2. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner states that the State and its instrumentalities within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India are duty bound to act fairly, justly and reasonably. Learned counsel avers that petitioner association requested respondents various times that wondering vehicles may be dealt with under law, but respondents continued to extend threats to petitioner association to vacate the place determined for petitioner association and that since the action and inactions of respondents are arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory, as such, there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the respondents affect right of petitioner association to trade/business/profession, guaranteed under Article 19. He further asserts that by impugned action of respondents, petitioner association would be divested of the place wherefrom they operate the motor transport services and where they have employed various persons because of which the owners, drivers of the vehicles and the other people employed by petitioner association earn their livelihood, which would result in starvation of such people. 4. Learned counsel for the State has raised threshold preliminary objection that the writ petition is not tenable at law because petitioner association has no locus standi and no fundamental right or any other right of the petitioner association is violated by respondents and has submitted that in the facts of the present case, the petitioner's fundamental right has not been violated at all by the respondent State. 5. Petitioner claims to be an association, registered with Labour Department, Municipal Committee Kupwara and J&K Transport Department under the banner of M/s Northern Lolab Sumo Stand at Khurhama, Kupwara. After having glance of writ petition and annexures appended thereto, it comes to fore that petitioner association has not annexed any Resolution of its Members to file instant writ petition and in absence of such authority, this type of writ petition cannot be preferred by petitioner association, irrespective of the fact, whether it is registered or not, because if the authority is given to petitioner association by its members, then it will create estoppel on their part to file another writ petition for the very same relief, if this writ petition, preferred by the present petitioner association, is dismissed. No such authority has been given by the members of the petitioner association and there is no Annexure to this effect in the memo of writ petition. 6. Likewise, learned counsel for petitioner association is unable to point out before this Court that there are Rules or Regulations of the petitioner association, specifically authorizing it to initiate the legal proceedings on behalf of its Members, so that any order passed by the Court in such proceedings, will be binding on its Members and, therefore also, the petitioner association has no locus standi to file this writ petition. Reference in this regard is made to B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees' Assn. & ors., (2006)11 SCC 731 ; Mahinder Kumar Gupta & ors. v. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 85 ; Parents Teachers Association and ors. v. Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and ors., AIR 2001 Rajasthan 35; Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar & ors. v. Krishi Utpadan Mandai Samiti & anr., AIR 1984 Allahabad 46; The Goa Judicial Officers' Association v. The State of Goa & ors., (1996)2 Mah. L.R. 9: (1997)4 Bom. C.R. 372. 7. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India 1981 Supp. SCC 87: A.I.R.1982 SC 149, that poverty, helplessness and disability or social or economic disadvantaged position was considered a sufficient ground for maintaining writ petition by persons other than aggrieved. The following criteria are to be kept in mind for the locus standi in such type of cases: (a) That the members of the said association should have sufficient strength so as to come in the category of a large section of public, (b) That the members should be identifiable, (c) That the members must be of the category of poor/ illiterate/ helpless of disabled, (d) That the individual members must not be capable of filing a writ petition, (e) That the entire body of the members must authorize the association to protect their legal rights; (f) That such an association must have its own constitution, and (g) That there must be authority to file a writ petition on behalf of all the members. 8. In the instant case, none of the grounds, mentioned above in clause (a) to (g), has been satisfied by the present petitioner association to maintain the writ petition. 9. 8. In the instant case, none of the grounds, mentioned above in clause (a) to (g), has been satisfied by the present petitioner association to maintain the writ petition. 9. In view of aforesaid facts, petitioner association has no authority to file this writ petition on behalf of its Members and in absence of such resolution, the petitioner association has no locus standi to file this writ petition. 10. Thus, in view of aforesaid reasons and judicial pronouncements, the petitioners have no locus standi to file this writ petition and hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.