Heard Sri Kumar Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Srivastava learned counsel for the respondents.
In brief, the facts , as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that opposite party no.3 Bhagwan Bux is the Gram Pradhan of the village Muraini, Block Maharajganj, Tehsil Maharajganj District Raibareli and the petitioner is also the resident of the same village.
As opposite party no.3 is involved in anti social acts, committed irregularities while discharging his duty on the post of Pradhan of the village in question and also embezzled the Gaon Sabha 's fund so a complaint in this regard had been made by the petitioner to the District Magistrate , Rae Bareli, opposite party no.2 , who had initiated an inquiry on the basis of the complaint . When no steps were taken in the said inquiry so the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition no. 6426(M/S) of 2009 before this Court and on 24.11.2009 this Court had disposed of the said writ petition with the following directions:-
"Considering the facts that the petitioners are kept under suspension with effect from 15th of September,2007, I hereby issue direction to the District Magistrate, Raebareli to conclude the inquiry after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and take a appropriate decision in the matter within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally."
Thereafter, an order was passed by the District Magistrate, 2 Raebareli on 26.12.2009 and Sri Bhagwan Bux, opposite party no.3 was exonerated from the charges levelled against him in respect to which the enquiry was contemplated on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner and he has reinstated as Pradhan.
Aggrieved by the said order dated 26.12.2009 , the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary and taking into consideration the facts regarding illegal action of opposite party no.3 for embezzlement of Gaon Sabha's fund , the said order could not be passed.
Sri Rakesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite parties while supporting the order dated 26.12.2009 passed by opposite party no.2 submits that the petitioner has got no locus standi to file the present writ petition as he is not a person aggrieved by the order in question passed by the District Magistrate and in this regard he relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Amin Khan Vs. State of U.P. and others , 2008(26) LCD 1453.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Admittedly in the present case on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner, an enquiry was initiated against opposite party no.3 as a result of which final order dated 26.12.2009 has been passed by opposite party no.2 by which opposite party no.3 was exonerated from the charges which was levelled against him and the same is subject matter of the enquiry proceedings and further opposite party no.3 was reinstated as Pradhan of the village.
In view of the said fact, the petitioner who filed a complaint does not in any manner comes within the ambit and scope of the definition to the person aggrieved rather he is a person annoyed thus he has no locus to challenge the order dated 26.12.2009.
This Court in Writ Petition no. 6409 (M/B) of 2008, Dharm Raj Vs. State of U.P. through District Magistrate , Sultanpur and others decided on 15.7.2009 where it has been held that a person, who comes within the ambit of a person aggrieved can challenge the said order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but a person annoyed 3 cannot challenge the same.
According to my opinion 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. (see Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar Hazi, Bashir Ahmad and others, AIR 1976 SC 578 and Northern Plastics Ltd. V. Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd. And others (1997) 4 SCC 452).
In Suresh Singh V. Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, (1993) 1 UPLBEC 414, this Court while considering the provision of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act ,1947 wherein issue arose as to whether an Up-Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha who was appointed to officiate as Pradhan during the period the Pradhan has been deprived of exercising his financial and executive powers has a right to be heard. The Court held that an order of removal of Pradhan is a matter between the State Government and the Pradhan. An Up-Pradhan who was petitioner in the said writ petition as well as the complainant and on whose complaint the enquiry had been initiated was held not to be a necessary party. The Court held that he has no locus standi to challenge any order passed during the enquiry. He can at the best be a witness in the said enquiry as none of his personal or statutory rights are affected.
Further, this Court in the case of Amin Khan (Supra) has held as under:-
"Admittedly, the applicant is a complainant and has also been included by the District Magistrate in the three members Committee to look after the work of the pradhan pending final enquiry. The issue as to whether such a beneficiary of order, impugned in writ petition could be heard by a Court was considered at length by the Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (Dr. B.S. Chauhan,J.) was a member in Smt. Kesari Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2005) 4 AWC 3563 wherein after noticing large number of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Court reached the conclusion that such an applicant cannot be a party in litigation for the reason that he cannot be a person aggrieved. The said judgment was challenged before the 4 Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 19761 of 2005 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 3.10.2005.
For the forgoing reasons, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has no locus standi to file a the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as he does not come within the ambit and scope of the definition of "person aggrieved" in order to enable him to challenge the order dated 26.12.2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Rae Bareli, so the present writ petition lacks merits and is dismissed accordingly.
No order as to costs.
19.1.2010 D.K.