1. This writ petition has been filed with following prayers:
(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 25.10.2016 passed by respondent no. 2.
(ii) To issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and direct to the respondent authority not to allot the dealership of the fair price shop to respondent no. 5.
(iii) To issue any such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) To award to the petitioner with the costs of this writ petition.
2. From perusal of records, it is found that present petitioners have filed a complaint against respondent no. 5 Moolak Raj, the agreement holder of fair price shop in question, on which the matter was inquired during which statement of several persons were recorded. Thereafter show cause notice dated 29.9.2016 was issued by respondent no. 3 (SDM) to respondent no. 5 showing cause as to why his agreement of fair price shop should not be cancelled. Then after accepting explanation of respondent no. 5 and affording opportunity of hearing, respondent no. 3 had passed order dated 25.5.2016 by which agreement of fair price shop of respondent no. 5 was cancelled. Against said order dated 25.5.2016, respondent no. 5 had preferred Appeal No. 26 of 2015-16 that was heard on merit and thereafter it was allowed by the judgment dated 25.10.2016 of respondent no. 2 (Joint Commissioner, Meerut Region, Meerut. By this order, the impugned order dated 25.5.2016 passed by SDM was cancelled. Against said judgment dated 25.10.2016 of respondent no. 2, this writ petition has been preferred.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in appeal the respondent no. 2 had not considered the finding of facts given by respondent no. 3 and passed impugned order which is erroneous. He further submitted that in aforesaid appeal, petitioner was not made party because of the fact that on this complaint proceedings were initiated. He further relied on judgement dated 7.2.2014 passed by Division Bench of this Court in Writ-C No. 7712 of 2014, Potan Vs. State of U.P. and others.
4. These submissions were denied by counsel for respondent no. 5, who submitted that petitioner has no locus standie to prefer this writ petition. He contended that the petitioner was only the complainant on whose complaint inquiry was initiated against respondent no. 5. After initiation of said inquiry, petitioner has no right to interfere either during inquiry or in appeal. He relied upon judgment passed by Divison Bench of this Court : [2008(4) ADJ 559 (DB), Amin Khan VS., State of UP and others and [2016(6) ADJ 122], Sriram Prasad and another Vs. State of UP and others.
5. The meaning of the expression 'person aggrieved' will have to be ascertained with reference to the purpose and the provisions of the statute. One of the meanings is that person will be held to be aggrieved by a decision if that decision is materially adverse to him. The restricted meaning of the expression requires denial or deprivation of legal rights. 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. The petitioner is not an aggrieved person by merely filing a complaint. The order of revocation of cancellation of fair price shop license do not affect him in any manner.
6. .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. A person aggrieved, means a person who is wrongly deprived of his entitlement which he is legally entitled to receive and it does not include any kind of disappointment or personal in convenience. "Person aggrieved" means a person who is injured or he is adversely affected in a legal sense.
7. The petitioner admittedly is a complainant in the present case, hence would not be an aggrieved person. He could at the most, be examined as a witness in the enquiry. But he cannot be permitted to be a party in the lis. Thus the petitioner does not have any locus standi to maintain an appeal or writ.
8. In view of above, this writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.11.2016 SKS