JUDGMENT :

Om Prakash Shukla J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. An interesting question arises in the present writ petition, wherein the petitioner claiming himself to be a member and former district president of Samajwadi Party, Mainpuri has sought to interdict an order dated 08.09.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj, State of U.P. The reason for such challenge is cancellation of a 90 years lease of a building, leased to Zila Panchayat, Mainpuri situated at Devi Road to Samajwadi Party on 10.06.2004 for office purposes.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned order dated 08.09.2022 has the effect of canceling a lease of 90 years by the State Government without any notice or opportunity of hearing to Samajwadi Party or any of its office bearers, although it has been alleged that the district president of Samajwadi Party, District Mainpuri was informed about the said cancellation vide a letter dated 09.09.2022 by the Apar Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat, Mainpuri. The petitioner also claims that there had been no violation of the terms of the lease and as such there was no occasion for the respondents to cancel the lease.

4. At the preliminary stage, when the case was called for hearing on 13.09.2022, this Court expressed its doubt on the locus of the petitioner in pursuing the present writ petition, wherein the petitioner sought some time and as such this Court permitted the petitioner to file supplementary affidavit to explain valid authorization so as to maintain the present writ petition.

5. The petitioner vide a supplementary affidavit dated 15.09.2021 filed an authorization in his name, repeating yet again, that he has been duly authorized by the national secretary of Samajwadi Party, and in support of the said contention, he has filed an office memorandum dated 14.09.2022 on the letter-head of Samajwadi Party issued by the national secretary of Samajwadi Party. It is noted that the petitioner while filing the present writ petition had filed an authorization dated 11.09.2022, which was also signed by the same national secretary. There is neither any affidavit from the national secretary nor any documents filed on record, which could satisfy this Court relating to a valid authorization. The authorization dated 14.09.2022 merely mentions about the earlier authorization dated 11.09.2022 and nothing more.

6. Having heard counsel for both the parties, this Court has given its anxious thought to the present petition. However, since a challenge to the maintainability qua the locus of the petitioner to file present writ petition has been raised at the very preliminary stage, this Court finds it’s bounded duty to first deal with the locus of the petitioner in preferring the present petition.

7. Admittedly, the impugned order is directed towards the cancellation of lease deed executed in favour of Samajwadi Party, which is a registered political party under Section 29A of the Representatives of Peoples Act, 1951. So it is Samajwadi Party as a “person”, who ought to have been an aggrieved person. It is also an admitted position that Samajwadi Party is not the petitioner nor is a party before this Court. The present petition has not been filed by Samajwadi Party through its office bearers. The petition has sought to be filed by the petitioner claiming himself to be an aggrieved party, although the records reveal that it must be Samajwadi Party who should have been an aggrieved party. In any case, this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that pursuant to the impugned order, the peaceful possession of two rooms of previous old district office of Samajwadi Party situated at Devi Road has been handed over by the Samajwadi Party to the Zila Panchayt, Mainpuri in presence of the magistrate appointed by the district administrator. Apparently, it does not seem to this Court that Samajwa