Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Learned Additional Government Advocate is
3. Petition is filed for the following reliefs:
b) grant such other reliefs as this Honourable Court
may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity."
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1230
HC-KAR
4. It is a case of petitioner that he is a resident of
Hatti village, Dist. Raichur. Petitioner submitted a
complaint dated 07.08.2024 to respondent Nos.1 to 3 in
respect of illegal recruitment of one Vinod son of Raveppa
Khatan, in respondent No.4 as Water Supply Assistant, on
the ground that said Vinod had secured the job by
submitting false local residential certificate. Based on the
said complaint of the petitioner, respondent No.3 directed
respondent No.4 by a communication dated 01.10.2024 to
consider and dispose of the complaint of the petitioner.
5. In view of the non-action on the part of
respondent No.4, petitioner submitted another
representation dated 22.07.2025 to respondent Nos.3 and
4. Consequently, respondent No.3 again by another
communication dated 22.08.2025 directed respondent
No.4 to submit a report in respect of action taken pursuant
to the complaint and communication dated 01.10.2024. It
is a grievance of petitioner that despite the said
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1230
HC-KAR
communication and recommendation made on the
representation, no action is taken and hence, he is before
this Court, aggrieved by the inaction of respondents in not
considering the representation of petitioner. It is the
grievance of the petitioner that non consideration of the
representation is illegal, arbitrary and against the
principles of natural justice. Any such representation ought
to have been considered in accordance with law, more so
for the reason respondent No.3 has sent a communication
to respondent No.4 to consider the complaint filed by the
petitioner. On these grounds he seeks to allow the
petition.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the State submits that the
respondent No.3 has merely forwarded the complaint of
the petitioner to respondent No.4, who would have to take
action in accordance with law.
7. It is a contention of the counsel for respondent
No.4 that the petitioner who has made allegation against a
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1230
HC-KAR
private person, namely Vinod, having obtained the
employment as Water Supply Assistant, has not been
made a party in this petition. He also contends that the
petition is not maintainable before this Court.
8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
respondents.
9. Primarily, it is the duty of this Court to see
whether the petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable.
The petitioner primarily would have to establish that he is
aggrieved by any wrong committed by any of the statutory
authority and deprived of any legal right, which is vested
in him or suffered any injury, to maintain a petition before
this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India. It is also to be seen whether the petitioner, who
is seeking grievance against an employment of a private
person in the respondent No.4 would be able to maintain
the present petition and whether such a petition can be
entertained by this Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1230
HC-KAR
Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465 in
paragraph Nos.9 and 10 and 11 has held as under:
"9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger
cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding,
unless he satisfies the authority/court, that he falls
within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a
person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury
can challenge the act/action/order, etc. in a court of
law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of
enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is
a complaint by the appellant that there has been a
breach of statutory duty on the part of the
authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially
enforceable right available for enforcement, on the
basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The
Court can, of course, enforce the performance of a
statutory duty by a public body, using its writ
jurisdiction at the behest of a person provided that
such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal
right to insist on such performance. The existence of
such right is a condition precedent for invoking the
writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the
exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that the
relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right.
In fact, the existence of such right, is the foundation
of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court.
The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily
be the right of the appellant himself, who complains
of infraction of such right and approaches the Court
for relief as regards the same. [Vide State of Orissa
v. Madan Gopal Rungta, Saghir Ahmad v. State of
U.P., Calcutta Gas Co. (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of
W.B., Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. and Tamilnad
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1230
HC-KAR
Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Assn. (2) v.
S.C. Sekar.]
10. A "legal right", means an entitlement arising out
of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an
advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by
the rule of law. The expression, "person aggrieved"
does not include a person who suffers from a
psychological or an imaginary injury; a person
aggrieved must, therefore, necessarily be one whose
right or interest has been adversely affected or
jeopardised. (Vide Shanti Kumar R. Canji v. Home
Insurance Co. of New York and State of Rajasthan v.
Union of India.)
11. In Anand Sharadchandra Oka v. University of
Mumbai, a sunilar view was taken by this Court,
observing that, if a person claiming relief is not
eligible as per requirement, then he cannot be said
to be a person aggrieved regarding the election or
the selection of other persons."
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jasbhai
Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmad
and others reported in (1976) 1 SCC 671, at paragraph
Nos.48 and 49 and 50 has held as under:
"48. In the light of the above discussion, it is
demonstrably 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
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1230
HC-KAR
affect his title to something. He has not been
subjected to a legal wrong. He has suffered no legal
grievance. He has no legal peg for a justiciable claim
to hang on. Therefore he is not a 'person aggrieved'
and has no locus standi to challenge the grant of the
no-objection certificate.
49. It is true that in the ultimate analysis, the
jurisdiction under Article 226 in general, and
certiorari in particular is discretionary. But in a
country like India where writ petitions are instituted
in the High Courts by the thousand, many of them
frivolous, a strict ascertainment, at the outset of the
standing of the petitioner to invoke this extraordinary
jurisdiction, must be insisted upon. The broad
guidelines indicated by us, coupled with other well-
established self-devised rules of practice, such as the
availability of an alternative remedy, the conduct of
the petitioner etc. can go a long way to help the
courts in weeding out a large number of writ
petitions at the initial stage with consequent saving
of public time and money.
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
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1230
HC-KAR
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 to
'reasonable restrictions imposed by law'"
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
present case, no personal injury or right vested in the
petitioner has been pointed out by the learned counsel
seeking indulgence of this Court for grant of a writ of
mandamus. As stated earlier, it is the duty of the
petitioner to come before this Court with clean hands to
show what is the injury sustained by him and wrong
committed to him by any authority, where he has a right
to approach this Court. Apparently, the petitioner was not
one of the aspirants to the job applied by the said Vinod,
who has secured the job as a Water Supply Assistant.
What is alleged is that the said Vinod obtained the said job
by submitting false local residential certificate. It is none
of the business of petitioner to challenge the appointment
of the said Vinod, as petitioner was not an aspirant to the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1230
HC-KAR
same job and no legal wrong was committed to the
petitioner, neither is he aggrieved by the appointment.
12. Under the circumstances, these kind of petitions
that are filed before this Court without even making the
said person against whom relief is sought a party, are
uncalled for and is an abuse of the process of Court. In my
opinion, this cannot even be called as a Public Interest
Litigation as it appears that there is some personal
vengeance against the said person, which has been sought
to be agitated through this petition for a writ of
mandamus. What is strange and appalling to see is that
the respondent No.3 has forwarded the letter to
respondent No.4 to be considered. All the more, it stinks
of certain mala fides and collusion between the petitioner
and the respondent No.3 in trying to interfere with the
appointment made in favour of one Vinod S/o Raveppa
Khatan.
13. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined
to accept the submission of the petitioner and it is
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1230
HC-KAR
apparently seen that this is an abuse of process of Court,
as no legal wrong is caused to the petitioner, neither is he
aggrieved by the appointment of the said Vinod to the post
of Water Supply Assistant and so also the said person is
not arrayed as a party in these proceedings.
14. Under the circumstances, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The petition is dismissed with cost of
Rs.5,000/- payable by the petitioner to the
Advocates' Association Library Fund, High
Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench. The
cost shall be paid within two weeks.
ii. It is made clear that if the cost is not paid,
the same shall be recovered in a manner
known to law under the Land Revenue
Rules.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE
NJ/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12/CT:SI
