Anand Kumar vs U.P. Ayukt Khadya Faizabad and Others

Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri M. P. Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

The brief facts as submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner are that initially by virtue of an agreement fair price shop had been granted in favour of respondent No. 3, Vijay Kumar, Village-Panchayat Bahalolpur, Block Debepur, Tehsil Sadar, District Sultanpur and the petitioner, who is resident of the same village had made a complaint against him and on the basis of the said complaint the license of the respondent No. 3 was suspended and show cause notice was issued by respondent No. 2 by order dated 13.10.2009. Aggrieved by the said order the respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal (Appeal No. 207-Sultanpur) before the respondent No. 1 and the same was allowed by order dated 21.1.2010 and the same was challenged in the present writ petition.

Sri M. P. Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the said orders submits that as the petitioner is a member of gram panchayat and on the basis of his complaint the proceeding in question has started so he has got a right to challenge the same by way of present writ petition.

Sri Rakesh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel, has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the petitioner has no locus standi to file present writ petition as he is not a person aggrieved by the order dated 21.1.2010 passed by the respondent No. 1. And in this regard he relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Amin Khan v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2008 (26) LCD 1453.

Sri M. P. Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal submits that as the petitioner is resident of the village in question in which the fair price shop is present and he is also member of Gram Panchayat and on his complaints the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and thereafter, fair price shop was suspended as such he has got locus standi to challenge the order dated 21.1.2010 passed by the respondent No. 1 (annexure No. 2 to the writ petition).

I have learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Admittedly in the present case, it is not disputed that on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner the agreement of running the fair price shop of respondent No. 3 was suspended by order of respondent No. 2 and thereafter the said order was set aside in appeal by respondent No. 1.

In view of the above said facts, the petitioner, who is a complainant thus not in any manner comes within the ambit and scope of the definition to the person aggrieved rather he is a person annoyed by the order dated 21.1.2010 (Annexure No. 2) thus he has got no locus to challenge the said order passed by the respondent No. 1.

This Court in Writ Petition No. 6409 (M/B) of 2008, Dharm Raj v. State of U.P. through District Magistrate , Sultanpur and Ors. 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 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, Haji Bashir Ahmed and Others, and Northern Plastics Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd. and Others,

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., Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Collector/Distt. Magistrate and Chief Development Officer/Mukhya Adhikari, 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 Hon''ble Apex Court in SLP (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 21.1.2010 passed by the respondent No. 1., Up Ayukt, Khadya, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, so the present writ petition lacks merits and is dismissed accordingly.

No order as to cost.