Ayush Tiwari vs State Of Up And 3 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 36993 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ayush Tiwari vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 11 November, 2024

Author: Prakash Padia

Bench: Prakash Padia

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:176526
 
Court No. - 10
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17017 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Ayush Tiwari
 
Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi,Dheeraj Kumar Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shesh Kumar Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
 

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

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing to the respondents to cancel the certificate of Uttar Madhyama (???????????) subject of the respondent no.4.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing to the respondent no.2 to cancel appointment of respondent no. 4 as a Guest lecturer in (???????????)."

2. List of fresh cases has been revised. Nobody is present on behalf of petitioner though Sri Shesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 is present.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Standing Counsel that petitioner is only a complainant hence petition on his behalf is not maintainable.

4. From perusal of the averments made in the petition, it is clear that the petitioner is a complainant and after the complaint was made by him, cognizance of the same has been taken by the competent authority. Since no decision has been taken on the complaint of the petitioner, he filed the present petition.

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. Since nobody is present on behalf of petitioner, present writ petition is dismissed in default.

Order Date :- 11.11.2024

Pramod Tripathi