Court No. - 5

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10274 of 2021

Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Pandey

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjai Kumar Pandey

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ramesh Prasad Mishra

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing

Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 4 & Sri R.P. Mishra, learned

counsel for respondent no.6.

The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has prayed

for the following reliefs:-

"I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding

and directing the competent respondent authority to consider and decide

the complaint/representation of the petitioner within the stipulated time as

fixed by this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and

circumstances of the case.

II. Issue any other writ, order or direction of a suitable nature which this

Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of

the case.

III. Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner."

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 is a resident of Village Basdiliya, Post-

Madhukarpur, District Siddharth Nagar and he is not at all

prejudiced by the appointment of respondent no.6 as none of his

rights have been violated by the appointment of respondent

no.6. Thus, the petitioner has no locus to file the present writ

petition.

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

being extracted hereinbelow:-

"16. The view taken by us that the petitioner is not a person aggrieved,

thus he has no locus standi to file the present writ petition thereby

challenging the order dated 16.03.2009 passed by Sub-Divisional

Magistrate, Jai Singh Pur, district Sultanpur is also supported by the

decision of this Court in the case of Suresh Singh v. Commissioner

Moradabad Division, 1993 (1) AWC 601, where it was held that in an

inquiry under Section 95 (g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, the

complainant who was Up-Pradhan could be a witness in an inquiry but

had no locus standi to approach this Court against the order of the State

authorities, for the reasons that none of his personal statutory right are

affected.

17. As such the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise

having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not

inclined to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India."

In the case of Sriram Prasad and Another Vs. State of U.P.

and Others 2016 (6) ADJ 122 this Court again reiterated that

complainant has no locus standi to challenge the restoration of

fair price shop license of a person. Paragraph 12 to 15 of the

aforesaid judgement is being extracted hereinbelow:-

"12. This Court in Ram Baran Versus State of U.P. and others, 2010(2)

AWC 1947 (LB), again reiterated the principle that a complainant would

have no locus to maintain the petition against the final order passed by

the District Magistrate pursuant to direction in a petition under Article

226 of the Constitution against the Pradhan.

13. In the case of R. v. London Country Keepers of the peace of Justice,

(1890) 25 Qbd 357, the Court 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."

14. The petitioner complainant shall have an opportunity during the

course of re