Kailash Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Suneet Kumar, J—The petitioner is A.P.L card-holder, filed a complaint against the fifth respondent, a fair price shop licensee. The license of fair price shop was cancelled vide order dated 20 May 2015 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil- Shahganj, district Jaunpur, aggrieved, the fifth respondent preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 69 before the Deputy Commissioner, Varanasi Region, Varanasi, which has been allowed by order dated 14 August 2015. The petitioner is assailing the order dated 14 August 2015.

Learned Standing Counsel and Sri Vivek Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent would submit that the writ petition at the behest of the complainant is not maintainable being not an aggrieved person.

A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Standing Counsel regarding the maintainability of the writ petition at the behest of the complainant against the final order passed in appeal. Reliance has been placed on Dharam Raj Vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2010) 2 AWC 1878 , Ram Baran Vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2010) 2 AWC 1947 and Amin Khan Versus State of U.P. and others, [2008(4) ADJ 559 (DB)].

The petitioner admittedly is a complainant in the present case, hence would not be an aggrieved person.

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. A more legal approach is required in the background of statutes which do not deal with the property rights but deal with professional misconduct and morality. (Refer- Bar Council of Maharashtra Vs. M.V. Dabholkar and Others, AIR 1975 SC 2092 : (1975) 2 SCC 702 : (1976) 1 SCR 306 .

Broadly, speaking a party or a person is aggrieved by a decision when, it only operates directly and injuriously upon his personal, pecuniary and proprietary rights (Corpus Juris Secundum. Edn. 1, Vol. IV, p.356, as referred in Kalva Sudhakar Reddy Vs. Mandala Sudhakar Reddy and Others, AIR 2005 AP 45 : (2004) 6 ALT 431

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.

The Division Bench in Dharam Raj Vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2010) 2 AWC 1878 , held that the petition on behalf of the complainant against the licensee of fair price shop is not maintainable against the final order passed by the competent authority as the complainant cannot be said to have any grievance in the matter being not an aggrieved person rather is a ''person annoyed''.

Recently Supreme Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad and Others, AIR 2012 SC 1339 : (2012) 3 SCALE 303 : (2012) 4 SCC 407 : (2012) 2 SLJ 353 : (2012) AIRSCW 1877 : (2012) 2 Supreme 506 was dealing with the removal of the President of Urban Municipal Council under the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965. The ex-President was the complainant, the Court was of the opinion that the complainant cannot be party to the lis as he could not claim the status of an adversarial litigant. The relevant extract is as follows:

"58. Shri Chintaman Raghunath Gharat, Ex-President was the complainant, thus, at the most, he could lead the evidence as a witness. He could not claim the status of an adversarial litigant. The complainant cannot be the party to the lis. A legal right is an averment of entitlement arising out of law. In fact, it is a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. Thus, a person who suffers from legal injury can only challenge the act or omission. There may be some harm or loss that may not be wrongful in the eyes of law because it may not result in injury to a legal right or legally protected interest of the complainant but juridically harm of this description is called damnum sine injuria.

The complainant has to establish that he has been deprived of or denied of a legal right and he has sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In case he has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on, he cannot be heard as a party in a lis. A fanciful or sentimental grievance may not be sufficient to confer a locus standi to sue upon the individual. There must be injuria or a legal grievance which can be appreciated and not a stat pro ratione valuntas reasons i.e. a claim devoid of reasons.

Under the garb of being necessary party, a person cannot be permitted to make a case as that of general public interest. A person having a remote interest cannot be permitted to become a party in the lis, as the person wants to become a party in a case, has to establish that he has a proprietary right which has been or is threatened to be violated, for the reason that a legal injury creates a remedial right in the injured person. A person cannot be heard as a party unless he answers the description of aggrieved party. (Vide: Adi Pherozshah Gandhi Vs. H.M. Seervai, Advocate General of Maharashtra, Bombay, AIR 1971 SC 385 : (1970) 2 SCC 484 : (1971) 1 SCR 863 ; Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and Others, AIR 1976 SC 578 : (1976) 1 SCC 671 : (1976) 3 SCR 58 ; Maharaj Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, AIR 1976 SC 2602 : (1977) 1 SCC 155 : (1977) 1 SCR 1072 ; Ghulam Qadir Vs. Special Tribunal and Others, (2001) 9 JT 231 : (2001) 6 SCALE 667 : (2002) 1 SCC 33 ; and Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba Vs. TOSIBA Appliances Co. and Others, AIR 2009 SC 892 : (2008) 37 PTC 394 : (2008) 8 SCALE 354 : (2008) 10 SCC 766 . The High Court failed to appreciate that it was a case of political rivalry. The case of the appellant has not been considered in correct perspective at all."

Similarly, the Supreme Court in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, (2013) 1 ABR 454 : AIR 2013 SC 58 : (2013) 136 FLR 574 : (2012) 11 SCALE 39 : (2013) 4 SCC 465 was dealing with the issue of caste certificate being challenged by a person who did not belong to the reserved category. The Apex Court imposed exemplary cost of one lakh upon the stranger to the lis as he abused the process of the Court to harass the appellant.

The Court held as follows:

"9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the Authority/Court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the Authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that, the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. Infact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. (Vide : The State of Orissa Vs. Madan Gopal Rungta, AIR 1952 SC 12 : (1952) 18 CLT 45 : (1952) 1 SCR 28 ; Saghir Ahmad Vs. The State of U.P. and Others, AIR 1954 SC 728 : (1955) 1 SCR 707 ; The Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. Vs. The State of West Bengal and Others, AIR 1962 SC 1044 : (1962) 3 SCR 1 Supp ; Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (1996) 6 AD 185 : AIR 1996 SC 2736 : (1996) 7 JT 216 : (1996) 5 SCALE 793 : (1996) 5 SCC 460 : (1996) 4 SCR 393 Supp ; and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Share Holders Welfare Association Vs. S.C. Sekar and Others, (2010) 1 CompLJ 357 : (2008) 13 JT 49 : (2008) 16 SCALE 205 : (2009) 2 SCC 784 .

10.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. (Vide: Shanti Kumar R. Canji Vs. The Home Insurance Co. of New York, AIR 1974 SC 1719 : (1974) 29 FLR 239 : (1974) 2 SCC 387 : (1975) 1 SCR 550 : (1974) 6 UJ 456 ; and State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 1977 SC 1361 : (1977) 3 SCC 592 : (1978) 1 SCR 1 ."

A Division Bench in Amin Khan Vs. State of U.P. and Nirmala Verma, (2008) 2 AWC 2002 : (2008) 2 UPLBEC 1256 was of the opinion that a complainant had no locus to challenge the order of the District Magistrate withdrawing the administrative and financial powers of the Pradhan. The Court placed reliance upon Suresh Singh''s case (Supra) as well as Smt. Kesari Devi Vs. State of U.P., Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Collector/Distt. Magistrate and Chief Development Officer/Mukhya Adhikari, (2005) 4 AWC 3563 : (2005) 3 ESC 2209 .

This Court in Ram Baran Vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2010) 2 AWC 1947 , 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.

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."

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.

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.

No order as to costs.