Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41758 of 2018
Petitioner :- Jiya Ul Haq
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- V.P. Singh Kashyap Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.
The petitioner, being an elected member of Nagar Panchayat Sakhanu, District Badaun has approached this Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authority to conduct an inquiry with respect to the illegal appointment of the respondent no.5 namely, Zaheer-Ul-Hasan.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent no.5 is a man of criminal antecedent and vide order dated 31.10.1988, the petitioner has been appointed as a 'Pond Keeper" on daily wage basis at Nagar Panchayat Sakahan, District Badaun, against whom, several complaints were made on which, enquiry was conducted and the respondent no.5 was found guilty of mis-conduct and carelessness but no action has been taken against him. The services of the respondent no.5 have been regularised vide order dated 25.09.2017, despite the fact, that there are seven criminal cases pending against him. It is further submitted that the petitioner made several complaints before the concerned authority to inquire into conduct and illegal appointment of the respondent no.5 but no heed has been paid towards the same.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner has no locus-standi to file the instant petition.
We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.
Admittedly, the petitioner is a complainant, who is nowhere an aggrieved person.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Northern Plastics Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd. (1997) 4 SCC 452 has considered the issue of locus standi and held that under the garb of being necessary party, a person cannot be permitted to make a case as that of general public interest or of a rival businessman rather a person aggrieved must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced or a person who has wrongly been deprived of something, a person having a remote interest cannot be permitted to file the appeal even by seeking the leave of the Court.
This Court in the matter of Raj Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2013 (10) ADJ 345 has held that the expression "person aggrieved" means a person who has suffered a legal grievance i.e. a person against whom a decision has been pronounced which has lawfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something."
In view of above, the petitioner has no locus to file the instant petition and therefore, the present petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.12.2018 S.Ali