The central legal point established is the interpretation of 'person aggrieved' under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the application of this definition to determine locus standi in challenging administrative orders.

Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Kumar Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Srivastava learned counsel for the respondents.

2. In brief, the facts, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that opposite party No. 3 Bhagwan Bux is the Gram Pradhan of the village Muraini, Block Maharajganj, Tehsil Maharajganj district Raibareilly and the petitioner is also the resident of the same village.

3. As opposite party No. 3 is involved in anti social acts, committed irregularities while discharging his duty on the post of Pradhan of the village in question and also embezzled the Gaon Sabha's fund so a complaint in this regard had been made by the petitioner to the District Magistrate, Raebareilly, opposite party No. 2, who had initiated an inquiry on the basis of the complaint. When no steps were taken in the said inquiry so the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition No. 6426 (M/S) of 2009 before this Court and on 24.11.2009 this Court had disposed of the said writ petition with the following directions :

"Considering the facts that the petitioners are kept under suspension with effect from 15.9.2007, I hereby issue direction to the District Magistrate, Raebareilly to conclude the inquiry after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and take an appropriate decision in the matter within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally."

4. Thereafter, an order was passed by the District Magistrate, Raebareilly on 26.12.2009 and Sri Bhagwan Bux, opposite party No. 3 was exonerated from the charges levelled against him in respect to which the enquiry was contemplated on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner and he has reinstated as Pradhan.

5. Aggrieved by the said order dated 26.12.2009, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary and taking into consideration the facts regarding illegal action of opposite party No. 3 for embezzlement of Gaon Sabha's fund, the said order could not be passed.

6. Sri Rakesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite parties while supporting the order dated 26.12.2009, passed by opposite party No. 2 submits that the petitioner has got no locus standi to file the present writ petition as he is not a person aggrieved by the order in question passed by the District Magistrate 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 others, 2008 (26) LCD 1453 : 2008 (2) AWC 2002.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Admittedly in the present case on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner, an enquiry was initiated against opposite party No. 3 as a result of which final order dated 26.12.2009 has been passed by opposite party No. 2 by which opposite party No. 3 was exonerated from the charges which was levelled against him and the same is subject-matter of the enquiry proceedings and further opposite party No. 3 was reinstated as Pradhan of the village.

9. In view of the said fact, the petitioner who filed a complaint does not in any manner comes within the ambit and scope of the definition to the person aggrieved rather he is a person annoyed thus he has no locus to challenge the order dated 26.12.2009.

10. This Court in Writ Petition No. 6409 (M/B) of 2008, Dharm Raj v. State of U. P. through District Magistrate, Sultanpur and others, 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.

11. 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 disap