https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290876 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. en-us Mon, 10 Sep 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Oct 2020 13:14:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290876 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 10 Sep 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290876