Allahabad High Court
Dr. Rohit Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 22 March, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8022 of 2023
Petitioner :- Dr. Rohit Kumar Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Asvani Kumar Yadav,Devi Prasad Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Devi Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
Present petition has been filed for seeking the following relief:-
"A. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature mandamus commanding and directing the respondents authorities to take the necessary and legal action against the respondents and make ensure and compliance of order dated 21.11.2022 issued by the respondent no.4 Nagar Siksha Adhikari, Jaunpur to the institute respondent no.5 S.A.(Sai Siksha) Siksha Niketan Junior High School, Naiganj, District- Jaunpur to strict compliance of the order and stop the function/running of the aforesaid institute imparts the Education up to the Junior High School level to the students.
B. Issue a writ order or direction in the mandamus commanding and directing the respondents restraining to stop the function and running of the institute of respondent no.5 hereinafter known S.A.(Sai Siksha) Siksha Niketan Junior High School, Naiganj, District- Jaunpur and direct the respondent authority.
C. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to decide the complaint/application submitted by the applicant/petitioner within span of time and period as provided and fixed by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice. So that justice may be done."
Learned Standing Counsel has raised preliminary objection and submitted that petitioner is only a complainant. He next submitted that in light of judgments of this Court in the cases of Babu Ram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others; [2009 (10) ADJ 24], Neeraj Kumar Mishra Vs. Dy. Commissioner (Food) Region Allahabad and others, [2017 (3) AdJ 834], Kailash Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others; (Writ-C No. 49975 of 2015) decided on 03.09.2015), Dharmraj Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2009 (Writ Petition No. 6409 of 2009 decided on 15.7.2009), Sriram Prasad and another Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ Petition No. 42133 of 2015 decide on 29.7.2015) and Chanda Devi and others vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ Petition No. 16750 of 2009 decided on 11.9.2019), petitioner is not an aggrieved person, therefore, he has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner though opposed, but could not dispute the factual as well as legal submission raised by the learned Standing Counsel.
Therefore, under such facts and circumstances as well as in light of judgments referred hereinabove, petitioner is not aggrieved person, therefore, petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.3.2023
Vivek Kr.
