Point of Law : 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 eye of the 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.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Nirmal Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying inter alia the following relief:-

(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider the representation of the petitioner and lodge the criminal case against the opposite party no. 5-Pradhan after investigate the matter and seize the powers of the opposite party no. 5 on the basis of submitting false and forged paper and concealment of fact by him in election process.

3. Kishan Pal, respondent no. 5 herein, is the Pradhan of Village Bachgawan, P.O. Bankagaon, Block and P.S. Pasgaon, Tehsil Mohamdi, District Lakhimpur Kheri. The petitioner, it is alleged, is simple, gentle and law abiding person and voter of the said Gram Panchayat. On 20.10.2021 the petitioner lodged a complaint before the State Election Commission, UP, Lucknow to the effect that the respondent no. 5 is not the resident of the village and as such his election to the post of Gram Pradhan was illegal. It was prayed that action be taken against him.

4. The question is as to whether the petitioner has the locus to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this case.

5. It is well settled that in order to have the locus standi to invoke certiorari jurisdiction, the petitioner should be an "aggrieved person". If the petitioner does not fall in this category, and is a "stranger", the Court will deny him this extraordinary remedy, save in very special circumstances wherein it may exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner.

6. In Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed, (1976)1 SCC 671, the Apex Court considered the question as to who can be considered as a "person aggrieved" in order to have the locus to invoke certiorari jurisdiction of a writ court and held as under:

"37. It will be seen that in the context of locus standi to apply for a writ of certiorari, an applicant may ordinarily fall in any of these categories:

(i) "person aggrieved";

(ii) "stranger";

(iii) busybody or meddlesome interloper. Persons in the last category are easily distinguishable from those coming under the first two categories. Such persons interfere in things which do not concern them. They masquerade as crusaders for justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. They indulge in the pastime of meddling with the judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often, they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity; while the ulterior intent of some applicants in this category, may be no more than spoking the wheels of administration. The High Court should do well to reject the applications of such busybodies at the threshold.

38. The distinction between the first and second categories of applicants, though real, is not always well-demarcated. The first category has, as it were, two concentric zones; a solid central zone of certainty, and a grey outer circle of lessening certainty in a sliding centrifugal scale, with an outermost nebulous fringe of uncertainty. Applicants falling within the central zone are those whose legal rights have been infringed. Such applicants undoubtedly stand in the category of "persons aggrieved". In the grey outer circle the bounds which separate the first category from the second, intermix, interfuse and overlap increasingly in a centrifugal direction. All persons in this outer zone may not be "persons aggrieved".

39. To distinguish such applicants from "strangers", among them, some broad tests may be deduced from the conspectus made above. These tests are not absolute and ultimate. Their efficacy varies according to the circumstances of the case, including the statutory context in which the matter falls to be considered. These are: Whether the applicant is a person whose legal righ