Allahabad High Court

Ranjeet Verma vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 17 March, 2023

Bench: Pankaj Bhatia




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4828 of 2020
 

 
Petitioner :- Ranjeet Verma
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Pratap Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 07.12.2018 whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent no. 4 against the order cancelling his fair price shop licence on 09.08.2017 has been allowed. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that a complaint was made by certain villages including the petitioner against the workmen of the respondent no. 4 which led to lodging of an FIR as well as cancellation of the fair price shop of the respondent no. 4 on 09.08.2017. The respondent no. 4 preferred an appeal against the said order which has been allowed. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was one of the complainant and thus has a right to approach this Court by filing the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Learned Standing Counsel, Shri Sanjay Ram Tripathi, states that the petitioner is not a person aggrieved and as such has no locus to file the writ petition. He places reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in Dharam Raj Vs. State of U.P. and others - 2009 (77) AIILR 564, the judgment of this Court in the case of Saavan Sri Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others - 2022 LawSuit(All) 428. In the light of the said judgments, he argues that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

The counsel for the petitioner places reliance on an interim order passed by this Court in Writ C No. 43188 of 2017 (Akhlaq Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) wherein this Court was of the view that in view of the law laid down in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors - AIR 2013 SC 58 the complainant has a right to approach this Court. He, thus, argues that the petitioner has the locus to file the present writ petition. On a pointed query being raised with regard to laches, the petition is silent with respect to the laches/delay with which the petition has been filed.

The issue with regard to person aggrieved was considered by this Court in the case of Dharam Raj (Supra) wherein this Court distinguished the person aggrieved from the person annoyed. The Court record as under:

"9. As evident from narration of the facts given above, it is evident that the petitioner was one of the complainants in the complaint made against the respondent no. 4 on 12.13.2008. The action has since been taken on the complaint so made by the petitioner and others against the respondent no. 4, and fine of Rs. 5,000/- has been imposed.

10. In the circumstances, the petitioner cannot have any grievance in the matter, and he is not an aggrieved person, rather he is a person annoyed.

11. In the case of R. v. London Country Keepers of the Peace of Justice, 1 the Court has held :

He thus may be said to be a person annoyed but not a person aggrieved, entitle to prefer an appeal against such order."

12. 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 in convenience. "Person aggrieved" means a person who is injured or he is adversely affected in a legal sense.

13. 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 satisfied 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. v. Dr. Nursingha Charan Sarangi and others, and Laxaminarayan R. Bhattad and others v. State of Maharashtra and another.

14. 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 v. Home Co. of New York and State of v. Union of India and others.

15. In Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Hazi Bashir Ahmad and others, 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 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 damnium 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."

16. In Northern Plastics Ltd. v. Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd. and others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court again considered the meaning of "person aggrieved" and "locus of a rival Government undertaking" and held that a rival businessman cannot maintain a writ petition on the ground that its business prospects would be adversely affected."

This Court once again in Amin Khan v. State of U.P. and others 2008 2 AWC 2002 considered the right of the person to approach this Court if he is not a party to the lis and noted as under:

"14. We may further clarify that the right of the petitioner to continue as one of the Members of three Members Committee pending regular enquiry against the Pradhan, is not a vested right nor he has a legal right to continue. More so, as the petitioner claims to be the complainant, he ought not to have been allowed to be a member of the Committee to look after the work of Pradhan. In case he was a complainant, he could be, at the most, examined as a witness in the enquiry but he cannot be permitted to become a party in the lis. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not have any locus standi to maintain the appeal, and the application for leave to appeal is liable to be rejected."

This Court once again in case of Saavan Sri (Supra) dealt with the case and after noting the judgment on the issue of person aggrieved record as under:

"[31] As to the right of appeal to be availed, the same has been granted only to any 'aggrieved person'. As to the true meaning to be given to the words 'aggrieved person' (synonymous to 'person aggrieved'), there is a consistent line of decisions. While the decision in the case of Ashfaq (supra) may no longer be good law in view of the changed provision of the Control Order viz-a-viz the right of appeal given to 'any person aggrieved' yet, that inherent principle in the earlier Control Order/s survives. Specifically, to the interpretation to be given to the word 'person aggrieved', I am bound by the dictum of the division bench of this Court in Dharam Raj (supra). In that case, the fair price shop agreement of the original agent was first suspended but later restored. Against such order, the writ petition had been filed by the complainant. The observations made in that decision are pertinent to the dispute at hand. Mainly, in paragraph nos.9, 10, 12 and 17, it was observed as below:

10. In the circumstances, the petitioner cannot have any grievance in the matter, and he is not an aggrieved person, rather he is a person annoyed.

17. 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 16.3.2009 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jal Singh Pur, District Sultanpur is also supported by the decision of this Court in the case of Suresh Singh v. Commissioner, Muradabad Division,7 where it was held that in an inquiry under section 95 (g) of the V.P. Panchayat Raj Act. 947, the complainant who was Vp-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."

[32] The issue was then dealt with elaborately by a learned single-Judge of this Court in Sriram Prasad (supra) wherein besides the following the division bench decision in Dharam Raj (supra), the learned Single Judge made pertinent observation as below:

"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 & 28).

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 2005 AIR(AP) 45,49 para 10) The expression 'person aggrieved' means a person who has suffered a legal grievance ie 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.

The Division Bench in Dharam Raj Versus 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.

Recently Supreme Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir versus 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 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 Charat, 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 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 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 of or denied of a legal right and he has sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In case he has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on, he cannot be heard as a party in a lis. A fanciful or senno interference can be warranted except or challenging by this in the eventtimental grievance may not be sufficient to confer a locus standi to sue upon the individual. There must be injuria or a legal grievance which can be appreciated and not a stat pro ratione valuntas reasons i.e. a claim devoid of reasons.

60. Under the garb of being necessary party, a person cannot be permined to make a case as that of general public interest. A person having a remote interest cannot be permitted to become a party in the lis, as the person wants to become a party in a case, has to establish that he has a proprietary a right which has been or is threatened to be violated, for the reason that a legal injury creates a remedial right in the injured person. A person cannot be heard as a party unless he answers the description of aggrieved party. (Vide: Adi Pherozshah Gandhi v. H.M. Seerval. Advocate General of Maharashtra. 1971 AIR(SC) 385; Jasbihai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar. Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors 1976 AIR(SC) 578; Maharaj Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 1976 AIR(SC) 2602; Ghulam Qadir x. Special Tribunal & Ors. 20021 SCC 33; and Kabushiki Kanha Toshiba v. Tosiba Appliances Company & Ors. 2008 10 SCC 766). The High Court failed to appreciate that it was a case of political rivalry. The case of the appellant has not been considered in correct perspective at all."

Similarly, the Supreme Court in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan versus State of Maharashtra and others, 2013 4 SCC 465, 466 was dealing with the issue of caste certificate being challenged by a person who did not belong to the reserved category. The Court imposed exemplary cost of one lakh upon the stranger to the lis as he abused the process of the Court to harass the appellant.

The Court held as follows:

"9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the Authority/Court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the Authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that, the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. In fact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the esercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must antinarily be the right of the appellant hutself, who complains of infraction of soch right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. (Vide State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Runga. 1952 AIR(SC) 12: Saghir Ahmad & Anr v. State of UP 1954 AIR(SC) 728: Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & On 1962 AIR(SC) 1044, Rajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1996 AIR(SC) 2736and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association (2) v. S.C Sekar & Ors., 2009 2 SCC 784)

10.A "legal right", means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression. "person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury, a person aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised. (Vide: Shanti Kumar R. Chanji v Home Insurance Co. of New York, 1974 AIR(SC) 1719; and State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 1977 AIR(SC) 1361)."

A Division Bench in Amin Khan versus State of U.P and others 2008 2 AWC 2002: (2008) 2 UPLBEC 1256 was of the opinion that a complainant had no locus to challenge the order of the District Magistrate withdrawing the administrative and financial powers of the Pradhan. The Court placed reliance upon Suresh Singh's case (Supra) as well as Smt. Kesari Devi versus State of U.P & others. 2005 4 AWC 3563.

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.

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."

The petitioner complainant shall have an opportunity during the course of enquiry to lead oral and documentary evidence if provided under the rules, but would have no locus to assail the final passed by the authority on the complaint." [33] Similar view was taken by another learned single-Judge of this Court in Neeraj Kumar Mishra (supra) and by yet another learned single-Judge of this Court in Gram Vikash Sewa Samiti (supra).

[34] In view of that law laid down by the Supreme Court as applied by the division bench of this Court and a long line of decisions (of learned single-Judge bench), the observations made to the contrary in Akhlaq (supra) and Smt. Muneeta (supra) giving the right of appeal to the complainant is clearly contrary to the binding principle and reasoning on that issue. In the context of disputes involving revocation of suspension of a fair price shop agreement, a 'aggrieved person' or 'person aggrieved' must be a person whose rights have been prejudiced by such order. Clearly, the present petitioner/complainant is not that person.

[35] As held in Ashfaq (supra), the beneficiary cannot be a 'person aggrieved'. He only has right to receive essential commodities food grains, fuel, etc. on assured basis. However, he cannot choose his fair price shop agency. The difference between the 'person aggrieved' and a 'person annoyed' was also noted by the division bench of this Court in Dharam Raj (supra). Though, a complainant may a person annoyed' vet he may never be a 'person aggrieved' (by an order passed in favour of the private respondent). Consequently, the petitioner could neither have filed an appeal and he has no locus to maintain the present petition."

The order cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Akhlaq Vs. State of U.P. (Writ C No. 43188 of 2017), mainly places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in AIR 2013 SC 58 wherein the Supreme Court carved out of an exception in favour of the third person, to the effect that when the said third person approaches to agitate the rights or the persons aggrieved who are illiterate and ill-equipped to approach this Court. The Court itself clarified that while entertaining a writ petition, this Court is empowered to see whether the person has approached this Court, at the behest of persons actually aggrieved. The said judgment can be of no avail to the petitioner, as the petitioner and the other persons who had raised a complaints were all complainants and did not fall within scope of persons aggrieved. Thus, following the ratio of law laid down in the case of Saavan Sri (Supra), this Court has no hesitation in holding that neither the petitioner is a person aggrieved nor has approached this Court at the instance of the persons aggrieved. As such, the petition by the petitioner is not maintainable.

The petition is further liable to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate unexplained laches as the order impugned in the present writ petition is of the year 2018 and the petitioner is approaching this Court after about five years.

Thus, on both the reasons recorded above, the petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 17.3.2023

Ashutosh