The central legal point established in the judgment is that a person must suffer from legal injury and have a judicially enforceable right to challenge an act, action, or order by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interalia, praying for quashing the Order dated 16.3.2009 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Jai Singh Pur, District Sultanpur (respondent no.2).

2. It appears that the petitioner along-with other villagers made a Complaint dated 13.12.2008 against the respondent no. 4 in regard to the irregularities committed by the respondent no. 4 in running the fair price shop in question.

3. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8156 (M/B) of 2008 before this Court. By the Order dated 11.9.2008 the Writ Petition was dismissed. It was observed in the said Order that it is legal obligation of the District Supply Officer/S.D.M. and the District Magistrate to see that the fair price shop dealers under their jurisdiction function properly in accordance with law.

4. Pursuant to the said Order dated 11.9.2008 (Annexure 3 to the Writ Petition), the license of the respondent no. 4 in respect of the fair price shop in question was suspended by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jai Singh Pur, District Sultanpur by the Order dated 21.11.2008 (Annexure 4 to the Writ Petition).

5. Further by the said Order dated 21.11.2008 inquiry was directed in regard to various charges indicated in the said Order.

6. The respondent no. 4 submit his explanation in regard to the charges mentioned in the said Order dated 21.11.2008. Thereafter the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jai Singh Pur, District Sultanpur by the Order dated 16.3.2009 imposed fine of Rs. 5,000/- on the respondent no. 4 and restored the license of the respondent no. 4 in regard to the fair price shop in question.

7. Against the said Order dated 16.3.2009 the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

8. We have heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1,2 and 3 and Sri Raghvendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4, and perused the record.

9. As evident from narration of the facts given above, it is evident that the petitioner was one of the complainants in the complaint made against the respondent no. 4 on 12.13.2008. The action has since been taken on the complaint so made by the petitioner and others against the respondent no. 4, and fine of Rs. 5,000/- has been imposed.

10. In the circumstances, the petitioner cannot have any grievance in the matter, and he is not an aggrieved person, rather he is a person annoyed.

11. In the case of R. v. London Country Keepers of the Peace of Justice,1 the Court has 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."

12. According to our 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.

13. It is settled law that a person who suffers from legal injury only can challenge the act/ action/ order etc. by filing a writ petition. Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable for enforcing a statutory or legal right or when there is a complaint by the petitioner that there is a breach of the statutory duty on• the part of the authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right for the enforcement of which the writ jurisdiction can be resorted to. The Court can enforce the performance of a statutory duty by public bodies through its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided such person satisfied the Court t