Allahabad High Court
Ram Narayan vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Samaj Kalyan ... on 10 June, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:35329-DB
Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5207 of 2025
Petitioner :- Ram Narayan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Samaj Kalyan Lko And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jaganniwas Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.
Heard Shri Jaganniwas Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.
By means of the present petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in nature of mandamus commanding the District Magistrate, Amethi to direct the District Social Welfare Officer, Amethi to take disciplinary action against the respondent no.6/Ram Baran Bind.
Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of writ petition by saying that the petitioner has no locus to file the present writ petition and as per facts of the present case, the petitioner does not fall within the ambit and scope of the definition of "Person Aggrieved".
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 inconvenience. "Person aggrieved" means a person who is injured or he is adversely affected in a legal sense.
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 satisfies 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. Vs. Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi and others (AIR 1999 SC 943) and Laxminarayan R. Bhattad and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2003) 5 SCC 413].
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 vs. Home Insurance Co. of New York (AIR 1974 SC 1719) and State of Rajasthan v. Union of India and others (AIR 1977 SC 1361)].
In Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Hazi Bashir Ahmad and others [AIR 1976 SC 578], 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 a 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 daminum 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. ( see Babua Ram and others Vs. State of U.P. and another (1995) 2 SCC 689 and Northern Plastics Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd. and others (1997) 4SCC 452) and a decision given by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dharam Raj Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2009 (27) LCD 1373".
Thus, the person aggrieved is, therefore, in this context, would mean a person who had suffered legal injury or one who has been unjustly deprived or denied of something.
In Collin's English Dictionary, the word "aggrieved" has been defined to mean "to ensure unjustly especially by infringing a person's legal rights". In Webster Comprehensive Dictionary, International Edition at page 28, 'aggrieved person' is defined to mean "subjected to ill-treatment, feeling an injury or injustice. Injured, as by legal decision adversely infringing upon one's rights". In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Fifth Ed., Vol. 1, pages 83-84, person aggrieved means "person injured or damaged in a legal sense".
In Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. at page 65, aggrieved has been defined to mean "having suffered loss or injury; damnified; injured", aggrieved person has been defined to mean:
"One whose legal right is invaded by an act complained of, or whose pecuniary interest is directly and adversely affected by a decree or judgment. One whose right of property may be established or divested. The word "aggrieved" refers to a substantial grievance, a denial of some personal, pecuniary or property right, or the imposition upon a party of a burden or obligation."
Therefore, in our considered view, the petitioner is not a person aggrieved in regard to subject matter involved in the instant case, hence, he has no locus to file the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
With the above observations, writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.6.2025
Abhishek Gupta
