Vinod Pal vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 8455 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 38
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9081 of 2023
 
Petitioner :- Vinod Pal
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Singh,Anjali
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhanu Pratap Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

Heard Ms. Anjali, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 and 5.

Present petition has been filed for seeking the following relief:-

"I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature mandamus commanding the respondent no.3 to pass appropriate order on the complaint made by the petitioner with regard to embezzlement of the money by the manager of the institution namely Kisam Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Mujar Suraina, Tehsil Sagari, District- Azamgarh which meant for operation of midday meal scheme within the stipulate period of time."

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.