JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Sanding Counsel for the State respondent nos. 1 & 3 and Sri Akhilesh Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.

2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has prayed for the following reliefs:-

"i. Issue an ad-interim mandamus directing the respondent no.2, 3 and 4 to take immediate action against the respondent no.5.

Or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for respondents submits that petitioner has no locus to file the present writ petition as he is only a complainant and he is not at all prejudiced by the conduct/appointment of respondent no.5, as none of his rights have been violated by the appointment of the said respondent. Thus, the petitioner has no locus to file the present writ petition.

4. This Court in the case of Dharam Raj Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2010 (2) AWC 1878 has held that complainant is not an aggrieved person and as such, he has no locus standi to file the writ petition. Paragraph 16 and 17 of aforesaid judgement is bei