Amit Shiromani vs State Information Commission
2021 Latest Caselaw 8531 MP

                                     1                              WP-23144-2021
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                 WP No. 23144 of 2021
             (AMIT SHIROMANI Vs STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION AND OTHERS)


Gwalior, Dated : 09-12-2021
      Shri Yogesh Singhal, Advocate for the petitioner.

      Shri Avneesh Singh, G.A. for the respondents/State.

Heard on I.A. No.14065/2021, an application for intervention. It is pointed out that the intervenor in the complainant in the case on whose complaint the action was taken by the authorities and petitioner has

been punished. Therefore, he is a necessary party to the proceedings. Law with respect to the intervention application made by the complainants was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.P. Karmchari Congress Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & others, in WA No. 64/2021 dated 10.02.2021, whereby the Division Bench has held as under:-

"A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents regarding locus of the petitioner and it was argued that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioner is not an aggrieved person. Learned Single Judge after referring the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2013) 4 SCC 465 and Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad & Ors (2012) 4 SCC, 407; held that the petitioner does not come within the definition of 'person aggrieved'. The status of the petitioner in the present case is that of a complainant, thus at the most, he could have led the evidence as witness, but he cannot claim the position of the adversarial litigant. The complainant cannot be the paty6 to the lis. Further, the petitioner/Union cannot be permitted to meddle in the administrative matter to dictate the transfer order, which does not affect him. Thus, a person who raises a grievance must show that he had suffered some legal injury.

In the present case, the appellant/petitioner is not in position to show that in what manner his statutory or legal rights have been affected.

In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned Single Jude dismissing the writ petition on the ground of locus."

Considering the fact that on the basis of the complaint the action has already been taken up by the authorities and the order of punishment has been passed, therefore, role of the complainant/intervenor is over. No grounds are 2 WP-23144-2021 available to the intervenor/complainant to participate in these proceedings.

Accordingly, the application for intervention is rejected. Issue notice to the respondents by RAD mode on payment of process fee within seven working days, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court.

Hence on the question of interim relief, it is pointed out that in identical circumstances, this Court has stayed the operation of impugned order dated 15.09.2021 in the case of Amit Shiromani Vs. State of Information Commission and others in WP No. 23161/2021 dated 10.11.2021. Therefore, maintaining parity with order passed in Amit (Supra) effect and operation of the impugned order dated 15/09/2021 (Annexure P/1) shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.

List this matter alongwith W.P. No.23161/2021 for analogous hearing in the week commencing 10th January, 2022.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE

neetu NEETU SHASHANK 2021.12.11 12:03:34 +05'30'