Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—The petitioner is a complainant, is assailing the order dated 22 July 2015 passed by Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur in Appeal No. C2014050000988/K-2014 (Mukh Lal Yadav v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kasia, Kushinagar), restoring the fair price shop license of the fourth respondent by rejecting the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kasia, Kushinagar.

2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Standing Counsel regarding the maintainability of the writ petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent would submit that the petition at the behest of the complainant is not maintainable against the final order passed in appeal. Reliance has been placed on Dharam Raj v. State of U.P. and others, 2010 (2) AWC 1878 (LB), Ram Baran v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(2) AWC 1947 (LB) and Amin Khan v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(4) ADJ 559 (DB).

4. The petitioner admittedly is a complainant in the present case, hence would not be an aggrieved person.

5. The meaning of the expression ‘person aggrieved’ will have to be ascertained with reference to the purpose and the provisions of the statute. One of the meanings is that person will be held to be aggrieved by a decision if that decision is materially adverse to him. The restricted meaning of the expression requires denial or deprivation of legal rights. A more legal approach is required in the background of statutes which do not deal with the property rights but deal with professional misconduct and morality. (Refer-Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V.Dabholkar, (1975) 2 SCC 702, 710-11, paras 27 and 28).

6. Broadly, speaking a party or a person is aggrieved by a decision when, it only operates directly and injuriously upon his personal, pecuniary and proprietary rights (Corpus Juris Seundem. Edn. 1, Vol.IV, p.356, as referred in Kalva Sudhakar Reddy v. Mandala Sudhakar Reddy, AIR 2005 AP 45,49 para 10)

7. The expression ‘person aggrieved’ means a person who has suffered a legal grievance i.e a person against whom a decision has been pronounced which has lawfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something. The petitioner is not an aggrieved person by merely filing a complaint. The order of revocation of cancellation of fair price shop license do not affect him in any manner.

8. The Division Bench in Dharam Raj v. State of U.P. and others, 2010 (2) AWC 1878 (LB), held that the petition on behalf of the complainant against the licensee of fair price shop is not maintainable against the final order passed by the competent authority as the complainant cannot be said to have any grievance in the matter being not an aggrieved person rather is a ‘person annoyed’.

9. Recently Supreme Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad and others, (2012) 4 SCC 407, was dealing with the removal of the President of Uran Municipal Council under the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965. The ex-President was the complainant, the Court was of the opinion that the complainant cannot be party to the lis as he could not claim the status of an adversarial litigant. The relevant extract is as follows:

“58. Shri Chintaman Raghunath Gharat, Ex-President was the complainant, thus, at the most, he could lead the evidence as a witness. He could not claim the status of an adversial litigant. The complainant cannot be the party to the lis. A legal right is an averment of entitlement arising out of law. In fact, it is a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. Thus, a person whosuffers from legal injury can only challenge the act or omission. There may be some harm or loss that may not be wrongful in the eyes of 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.

59. The complainant has to establish that he has been deprived