Locus standi in writ jurisdiction bars a stranger from challenging a mining lease without a legal right affected.

A writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable only where the petitioner shows infringement of a personal legal right or that he is otherwise prejudicially affected. Here, the challenge to the mining lease failed because the first respondent's application did not relate to the area ultimately granted, and no legal right of his in the granted lease area was shown to have been affected. He was therefore neither a person aggrieved nor entitled to impeach the grant, and lacked locus standi to maintain the petition.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable when the first respondent was neither a person aggrieved nor one whose legal right in the subject matter of the mining lease had been infringed.

Analysis: The challenge was founded on the assertion that the first respondent had an enforceable claim to a different area, but it was admitted that his application did not relate to the area ultimately granted to the appellant. A writ under Article 226 ordinarily lies to protect a personal or individual legal right, though exceptions may exist in special categories of cases. Since no right of the first respondent in respect of the granted lease area was shown to have been affected, he was neither a party aggrieved nor a person prejudicially affected. In those circumstances, the petition could not be maintained.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for want of locus standi and the challenge to the lease failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable only at the instance of a person whose legal right is affected, and a stranger who is neither aggrieved nor prejudicially affected lacks locus standi to impeach the impugned action.

---