No doubt the right that can be enforced under Art.226 of the Constitution should ordinarily be the personal and individual right of the applicant. But over the years the approach to the question has shown a trend recognising the right of an individual to take causes of general concern as a representative of the public even though no personal right of his has been infringed. [ State of Kerala vs Lukose . 1981 KLT 596 = ILR 1981(2) Ker 205. .Janaki Amma and S.K.Khader {JJ}]

People have a right to object within law the setting up of liquor shops. There is constitutional obligation on the State to regulate those who trade in intoxicants. Bihar Excise Act. (2 of 1915 ) Rule 45. [Basant Yadav vs. State of Bihar. AIR 2003 Pat 95. Ravi.S.Dhavan & R.N.Prasad (JJ)]

There can be no semblance of public interest when several persons object to the shifting of location of a shop by a person, while espousing the cause of another. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and it cannot be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy him or his personal grudge and enemity. [ Villagers of Jajarsingh Basantinath Dutta vs. State of Orissa. AIR 1997 Ori 163 = 1997 (83) Cut LT 667 = 1997(1) Oris. L R 270.S.N.Phukan {CJ} & Arijit Pasayat {J}]