Ramvir Singh vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 21682 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ramvir Singh vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 2 July, 2024

Author: Prakash Padia

Bench: Prakash Padia

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:107107
 
Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15037 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Ramvir Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Mishra,Shri Krishna Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for State-respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 to 5.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition inter alia with the following prayer:-

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.3 to pass the order for recovery of salary obtained by respondent No.6 from 4.08.1994 to 31.03.2023 within the period stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature mandamus directing the respondents to lodge the criminal proceedings against the respondent No.6 within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court."

3. Preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned Standing counsel as well as Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 to 5 that the petitioner does not have an independent legal right to approach the respondent no.3 to pass the order of recovery of salary obtained by respondent no.6.

4.From the perusal of the record it is clear that the petitioner is a social worker.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed reported in 1976 (1) SCC 671 held that a stranger who is not an aggrieved person cannot maintain a Writ for either Certiorari or Mandamus. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

"50. While a Procrustean approach should be avoided, as a rule, the Court should not interfere at the instance of a "stranger" unless there are exceptional circumstances involving a grave miscarriage of justice having an adverse impact on public interests. Assuming that the appellant is a "stranger", and not a busybody, then also there are no exceptional circumstances in the present case which would justify the issue of a writ of certiorari at his instance. On the contrary, the result of the exercise of these discretionary powers, in his favour, will, on balance, be against public policy. It will eliminate healthy competition in this business which is so essential to raise commercial morality; it will tend to perpetuate the appellant's monopoly of cinema business in the town; and above all, it will in effect, seriously injure the fundamental rights of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, which they have under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, to carry on trade or business subject "reasonable restrictions imposed by law."

6. The same view was again taken by the Madras High Court in the case of Eswari vs. Chief Secretary of Government of Tamilnadu and others in Writ Petition No.27298 of 2021 decided on 25.1.2023.

7. In this view, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition on behalf of the petitioner is not at all maintainable since the petitioner is not falling in the definition of 'aggrieved person'.

8. At this stage, a prayer has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner to dismiss the present petition as not pressed.

9. The aforesaid prayer has not been opposed by learned Standing counsel as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

10. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed as not pressed.

11. It is made clear that no liberty whatsoever is granted to the petitioner to file fresh writ petition for the same cause of action.

Order Date :- 2.7.2024

S.K.