A person is not an aggrieved party who can maintain a writ petition unless they have a legal or fundamental right affected by the impugned order or are directly affected by the order.

( 1 ) THIS application by the petitioners, under Article 226 of the constitution, is to issue a writ of certiorari and quash the proceed ings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur in his Re. E, 2795/65 dt. 29-11-1969 permitting the second respondent to rejoin duty as village Munsiff.

( 2 ) IT is averred in the affidavit filed in support of this application that the second respondent was found by the Ist respondent to have misappropriated a sum of Rs. 656-59 P but was permitted to rejoin duty as Village Munsif without any punishment and hence, the impugned order should be quashed.

( 3 ) IT is argued by Mr. P. A. Chowdary, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, that the second respondent should have been dismiss sed by the 1st respondent who, on enquiry found the village officer to have misappropriated a sum of more than Rs. 600/- public revenue collected from his clients and that the impugned order amounts to not awarding any punishment even though the charges were proved.

( 4 ) THE writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the short ground that it is not maintainable. Admittedly, the second respondent was suspended on April, 12, 1963 pending enquiry into the charges of misappropriation by the Revenue Divisional Officer. For no fault of the second respondent, the enquiry was not conducted for several years, but the same was concluded only by 19-11-1969 when the second notice relating to punishment was given to him. After the receipt of the further explanation and hearing the representations of the second respondent s counsel, the Revenue Divisional Officer, by his order dated 29-11-1969 held that the charges of misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 688-05 p. were provedi It was further held that the delinquent was a man of adequate means and considerable status and hence it was doubtful whether he intentionally misappropriated the amounts, With regard to the punishment, the Revenue divisional Officer, took a very lenient view in view of the fact that the village officer has undergone suspension for a total period of six years and seven months as a result of which he was out of office for that period, It is further observed that :"he has also suffered a lot financially and mentally during this long period of suspension. He paid the entire amount of misappropriated money in to the State Bank of India in response to the notice issued from office after the amounts of embezzlement were finally finalised. In view of all these facts the case of the delinquent deserves to be considered sympathetically and with these mitigating factors in view. I take a lenient view and consider that the period of suspen, sion of about 6 years and 7 months from 12-4-1963 till he rejoins duty after bis reinstatement is quite sufficient and that his punishment will meet the ends of justice in the circumstances of the case. I, therefore, treat the period of suspension already undergone by the delinquent from 12-4-63 till the date of his actual rejoining duty after reinstatement as suspension for all the charges proved against him and reinstate Sri D. Chenga Reddy, the permanent village munsiff of Yellasiri of Gudur Taluk to duty"

( 5 ) THE aforesaid order is appealable to the district Collector within thirty days of its receipt. That appeal was permissible only to the second respondent village Offcer, but the petitioners who made complaint to the authorities about the misappropriation o! government revenue by the second respondent village Officer are not entitled to prefer an appeal to the District Collector against the impugned order. The petitioners, by no stretch of reasoning can be said to be parties aggrieved by the impugned orders Nor can they be held to be persons interested and aggrieved by it entitling them to file this Writ petition on the ground that they have also given evidence against the second respondent.

( 6 ) THE decision of the Madras High Court in ASIA ELECTRIC (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD. , AND OTHERS V. THE JOINT COMMERCIAL