Judgment / Order JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed with following prayers: 2. The petitioners have come out with a plea that although, the respondent No.4-Board of Infrastructure Development and Investment Promotion took a decision in its meeting dated 10.08.2007 to allot the subject piece of land in favour of the respondent No.7, i.e., International Amusement Limited; but, the allotment letter and possession letter were issued in favour of the respondent No.8-International Amusement and Infrastructure Private Limited; both having different identities. 3. However, the memo of the writ petition does not reflect locus of the petitioners to assail the aforesaid action. Despite repeated requests of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners is not able to satisfy as to violation of any of their legal or fundamental right under the orders impugned in the writ petition. 4. It is trite law that to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has to plead and establish breach of his legal and/or fundamental right or a corresponding legal obligation upon the respondent qua him. A Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and others: Civil Appeal No.138/1961. “(5) The first question that falls to be considered is whether the appellant has locus standi to file the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The argument of learned counsel for the respondents is that the appellant was only managing the industry and it had no proprietary right therein and, therefore, it could not maintain the application. Article 226 confers a very wide power on the High Court to issue directions and writs of the nature mentioned therein for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose. It is, therefore, clear that persons other than those claiming fundamental rights can also approach the Court seeking a relief thereunder. The Article in terms does not describe the classes of persons entitled to apply thereunder; but it is implicit in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction that the relief asked for must be one to enforce a legal right. It is, therefore, clear that persons other than those claiming fundamental rights can also approach the Court seeking a relief thereunder. The Article in terms does not describe the classes of persons entitled to apply thereunder; but it is implicit in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction that the relief asked for must be one to enforce a legal right. In state of Orissa v. Madan Gopal, 1952 S C R 28 : (AIR 1952 S C 12) this Court has ruled that the existence of the right is the foundation of the exercise of jurisdiction of the Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. In Charanjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India, 1950 S C R 869 : (AIR 1951 S C 41), it has been held by this Court that the legal right that can be enforced under Art. 32 must ordinarily be the right of the petitioner himself who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief. We do not see any reason why a different principle should apply in the case of a petitioner under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The right that can be enforced under Art. 226 also shall ordinarily be the personal or individual right of the petitioner himself, though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto this rule may have to be relaxed or modified.” 5. Further, a learned Single Judge of this Court, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18255/2015: Rajasthan State Roadways Employees Union (AITUC) Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others vide order dated 18.02.2016, while, declining to enter into merits of the case for the reason that the petitioner-Unions had no locus standi to challenge the modified scheme, held as under:- “In my considered opinion, the merits of the case do not require any address for the reason that the Unions apparently have no locus standi to lay a challenge to the modified scheme notified on 29.05.2015, the subsequent notification of the routes dated 02.09.2015 and the invitation of the applications from private bus operators on 08.09.2015. It is no more res integra that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not available at large but the power of judicial review of this Court in the exercise of its equitable extraordinary jurisdiction can only be invoked where the petitioner has suffered some apparent legal injury by contravention of his/its legal or fundamental rights or where a statutory authority has failed to discharge its obligation for the petitioner's benefit it has been burdened with under statute. The Apex Court in the case of Vinoy Kumar Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors. [ (2001) 4 SCC 734 ] held that generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order, his fundamental rights have neither been “directly or substantially invaded” nor is there any “imminent danger of such rights being invaded” or his accrued interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. It was further held that the relief under Article 226 of the constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction and the exception thereto is available only in cases where a writ applied for is a writ of habeas- corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest. In Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad & Ors. [ (2012) 4 SCC 407 ] the Apex Court held that a fanciful or sentimental grievance is not sufficient to confer a locus standi to sue and there must be injuria and a legal grievance related to the impugned order. It was further held that under the garb of being an aggrieved party, a person cannot be permitted to make a case as that of general public interest and one having a remote interest cannot lay a lis. Under Article 226 it is necessary that a violation or a threat to a proprietary right obtains in presenti for the reason that it is only a legal injury which creates a remedial right to an injured person. Reference can also be made to the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, [ (1976) 1 SCC 671 ] Maharaj Singh Vs. State of U.P. [ (1977) 1 SCC 155 ], Ghulam Qadir Vs. Reference can also be made to the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, [ (1976) 1 SCC 671 ] Maharaj Singh Vs. State of U.P. [ (1977) 1 SCC 155 ], Ghulam Qadir Vs. Special Tribunal [(2002) 1 SCC 33] which all have consistently held that a person cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the writ unless he answered the description of an “aggrieved party”. In Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [ 2013 (4) SCC 465 ] it was held by the Apex Court that only a person who has suffered or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order in a court of law. It was further held that it is implicit in the exercise of the equitable extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court that the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right—this is the foundation on which jurisdiction by the Court can be exercised. The words “legal rights” were explained to mean an entitlement arising out of law. Para 10 of the opinion reads as under : “A “legal right”, means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, “person aggrieved” does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised.” (underlining mine) Concluding the Apex Court pithily held that the law on locus to allow a petition can be summarized to the effect that a person who raises a grievance, must show how he has suffered legal injury.” 6. The appeal preferred thereagainst was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.03.2016 in the case of Rajasthan State Roadways Employees Union (AITUC) versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.: DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.387/2016. 7. Since, neither, the writ petition contains any such averment that impugned orders or action/inaction of the respondents are in breach of any of their legal or fundamental right nor, the petitioners have been able to demonstrate this to this Court, this writ petition is not maintainable and is dismissed accordingly. 8. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.