Chandra Bhushan Pandey vs Sri Narain Singh, Minister For ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 4211 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Reserved
 

 
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 7770 of 2011
 
Petitioner :- Chandra Bhushan Pandey
 
Respondent :- Sri Narain Singh, Minister For Horticulture Deptt. & Ors.
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Ashok Pande,Rohit Tripathi
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.

Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar , J.)

Heard Sri Ashok Pande, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri J. N. Mathur, Additional Advocate General and Smt. Sangeeta Chandra learned State counsel appearing on behalf of official respondents.

Sri Chandra Bhushan Pandey, the president of Officers' Association, Ministry for Horticulture, Department of State of Uttar Pradesh has filed present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to Sri Narain Singh, Minister for Horticulture Department, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow/ respondent no.1 to ask/ recommend to respondent no.2 to withdraw/remove respondent no.4 ( Jeevan Lal Verma ) from the post of Personal Secretary and to appoint a new person in his place.

The above said relief has been claimed on the alleged facts which in nut shell are that the petitioner being President of the Association has raised grievances of the members of the association including the problem created by personal secretary of Sri Narain Singh, Minister for Horticulture, as the said person with oblique motive and purpose is not listening the complaints made by the members of the association and for the said purpose, he is demanding illegal gratification. However, no heed has been paid by respondent no.1 in spite of several representations as annexed as Annexure no.1, to the writ petition.

In view of the above said factual matrix, the core question which has to be decided in the instant writ petition is, as to whether the petitioner falls within the ambit and scope of the definition of 'person aggrieved' in order to enable him to file present writ petition for redressal of grievance and to get relief as claimed.

According to our opinion, a 'person aggrieved' means a person who is wrongly deprived of his entitlement which he is legally entitled to receive and it does not include any kind of disappointment or personal inconvenience. 'Person aggrieved' means a person who is injured or he is adversely affected in a legal sense.

It is settled law that a person who suffers from legal injury only can challenge the act/action/order etc. by filing a writ petition. Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable for enforcing a statutory or legal right or when there is a complaint by the petitioner that there is a breach of the statutory duty on the part of the authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right for the enforcement of which the writ jurisdiction can be resorted to. The Court can enforce the performance of a statutory duty by public bodies through its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of the said right is the condition precedent to invoke the writ jurisdiction. [Utkal University etc. Vs. Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi and others (AIR 1999 SC 943) and Laxminarayan R. Bhattad and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2003) 5 SCC 413].

Legal right is an averment of entitlement arising out of law. It is, in fact, an advantage or benefit conferred upon a person by a rule of law [Shanti Kumar R. Canji vs. Home Insurance Co. of New York (AIR 1974 SC 1719) and State of Rajasthan v. Union of India and others (AIR 1977 SC 1361)].

In Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Hazi Bashir Ahmad and others [AIR 1976 SC 578], the Apex Court has held that only a person who is aggrieved by an order, can maintain a writ petition. The expression 'aggrieved person' has been explained by the Apex Court observing that such a person must show that he has a more particular or peculiar interest of his own beyond that of the general public in seeing that the law is properly administered. In the said case, a cinema hall owner had challenged the sanction of setting up of a rival cinema hall in the town contending that it would adversely affect monopolistic commercial interest, causing pecuniary harm and loss of business from competition. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under,

"Such harm or loss is not wrongful in the eye of law because it does not result in injury to a legal right or a legally protected interest, the business competition causing it being a lawful activity. Judicially, harm of this description is called daminum sine injuria. The term injuria being here used in its true sense reason why law suffers a person knowingly to inflict harm of this description on another, without holding him accountable for it, is that such harm done to an individual is a gain to society at large. In the light of the above discussion, it is demonstratively clear that the appellant has not been denied or deprived of a legal right. He has not sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In fact, the impugned order does not operate as a decision against him, much less does it wrongfully effect his title to something. He has not been subjected to legal wrong. He has suffered no grievance. He has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hand on. Therefore, he is not a "person aggrieved" to challenge the ground of the no objection certificate. ( see Babua Ram and others Vs. State of U.P. and another (1995) 2 SCC 689 and Northern Plastics Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd. and others (1997) 4SCC 452) and a decision given by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dharam Raj Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2009 (27) LCD 1373"

Thus, the person aggrieved is, therefore, in this context, would mean a person who had suffered legal injury or one who has been unjustly deprived or denied of something.

In Collin's English Dictionary, the word "aggrieved" has been defined to mean "to ensure unjustly especially by infringing a person's legal rights". In Webster Comprehensive Dictionary, International Edition at page 28, 'aggrieved person' is defined to mean "subjected to ill-treatment, feeling an injury or injustice. Injured, as by legal decision adversely infringing upon one's rights". In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Fifth Ed., Vol. 1, pages 83-84, person aggrieved means "person injured or damaged in a legal sense".

In Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. at page 65, aggrieved has been defined to mean "having suffered loss or injury; damnified; injured", aggrieved person has been defined to mean:

"One whose legal right is invaded by an act complained of, or whose pecuniary interest is directly and adversely affected by a decree or judgment. One whose right of property may be established or divested. The word "aggrieved" refers to a substantial grievance, a denial of some personal, pecuniary or property right, or the imposition upon a party of a burden or obligation."

Therefore, in our considered view, the petitioner is not a person aggrieved in regard to subject matter involved in the instant case, hence , he has no locus standi to file the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Further, Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General of U.P. has very fairly submitted that he will look into the matter and bring it to the notice of respondents no. 1 and 2 to take appropriate action , if the same is correct. We hope and trust on the submission made by Sri Mathur, who will use his office to do the needful.

For the foregoing reasons, writ petition is dismissed with above observations.

Order Date :-30.8.2011

dk/