Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17837 of 2021 Petitioner :- Ramesh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rishikesh Pati Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents no.1 to 3.
The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has prayed for the following relief:-
"i). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to consider and decide the complaint dated 18.10.2021 submitted by the Petitioner (Annexure No.7 to the writ petition) against the Respondent No.4 with regard illegal appointment on basis of false and fabricated documents within stipulated period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to make an inquiry against the Respondent No.4 with regard illegal appointment on basis of false and fabricated documents within stipulated period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
At the very outset, learned counsel for respondents submits that petitioner has no locus to file the present writ petition as he is only a complainant and he is not at all prejudiced by the appointment of respondent no.4 as none of his rights have been violated by the appointment of the said respondent. Thus, the petitioner has no locus to file the present writ petition.
This Court in the case of Dharam Raj Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2010 (2) AWC 1878 has held that complainant is not an aggrieved person and as such, he has no locus standi to file the writ petition. Paragraph 16 and 17 of aforesaid judgement is being extracted hereinbelow:-
"16. The view taken by us that the petitioner is not a person aggrieved, thus he has no locus standi to file the present writ petition thereby challenging the order dated 16.03.2009 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jai Singh Pur, district Sultanpur is also supported by the decision of this Court in the case of Suresh Singh v. Commissioner Moradabad Division, 1993 (1) AWC 601, where it was held that in an inquiry under Section 95 (g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, the complainant who was Up-Pradhan could be a witness in an inquiry but had no locus standi to approach this Court against the order of the State authorities, for the reasons that none of his personal statutory right are affected.
17. As such the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
In the case of Sriram Prasad and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2016 (6) ADJ 122 this Court again reiterated that complainant has no locus standi to challenge the restoration of fair price shop license of a person. Paragraph 12 to 15 of the aforesaid judgement is being extracted hereinbelow:-
"12. This Court in Ram Baran Versus State of U.P. and others, 2010(2) AWC 1947 (LB), again reiterated the principle that a complainant would have no locus to maintain the petition against the final order passed by the District Magistrate pursuant to direction in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the Pradhan.
13. In the case of R. v. London Country Keepers of the peace of Justice, (1890) 25 Qbd 357, the Court held:
"A person who cannot succeed in getting a conviction against another may be annoyed by the said findings. He may also feel that what he thought to be a breach of law was wrongly held to be not a breach of law by the Magistrate.
He thus may be said to be a person annoyed but not a person aggrieved, entitle to prefer an appeal against such order."
14. The petitioner complainant shall have an opportunity during the course of regular enquiry to lead oral and documentary evidence if provided under the rules, but would have no locus to assail the final order passed by the authority on the complaint".
15. Having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere. The petition filed at the behest of a complainant being not maintainable is, accordingly, dismissed."
Since the controversy is concluded by the two judgements of this Court in the cases of Dharam Raj (supra) and Sriram Prasad (supra), therefore, following the aforesaid two judgements, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition on behalf of the petitioner is not maintainable.
Since petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition, therefore, this Court is not entering into the merits of this case. Consequently, the writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.12.2021 SS