Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 April, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16335
1 WP-11899-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 3 rd OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 9825 of 2025
DHEEMANSHU MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shailendra Verma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Manas Mani Verma - Government Advocate for the State.
Shri D.K. Dixit - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vinay Singh Baghel - Advocate
for respondent No.4.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 11899 of 2025
RAKESH SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vipin Yadav - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Manas Mani Verma - Government Advocate for the State.
Shri K.C. Ghildiyal - Senior Advocate assisted with Shri Vinay Singh Baghel -
Advocate for respondent No.4.
ORDER
This order shall govern disposal of WP No.9825/2025 and WP
No.11899/025 as well.
2. This petition has been filed while praying for following reliefs:
"I. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16335
2 WP-11899-2025
the concern Respondents to decide/consider the
representation of the Petitioner dated 07/03/2025
produced as Annexure P/5.
II. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing
the concern Respondents to invite the new e-tender for
allotment of composite liquor shop and given the
preference to the petitioner.
III. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorary to quash
the impugned order dated 27/02/2025 passed by the
Respondent No.3 vide Annexure P/1.
IV. Issue any other writ, order or direction as this
Hon'ble Court deems fit. "
3. In WP No.9825/2025, as per the petitioner, respondent No.4 who
was granted SGL F-I composite group excise license of Waidhan, District
Singrauli, applied for renewal as per Clause 11.6 of the policy. For execution
of renewal of license, he was required to deposit the entire amount of license
fee, within a period of 3 days. In the present case, the renewal was executed
on 27/02/2025 and said date was excluded as per Clause 11.6 and 11.7 of the
policy and the period of three days was to be counted from 28/02/2025.
28/02/2025 was the first day, 01/03/2025 was the second day and 02/03/2025
was Sunday, thus the third and the last day was 03/03/2025. However,
respondent No.4 deposited license fee on 04/03/2025 which is evident from
Annexure P/2 dated 04/03/2025. As there was apparent non deposit of the
amount within three days, the matter was referred by the Collector to Excise
Commissioner, who in turn, vide order dated 05/03/2025 contained in
Annexure P/7 informed that the deposit can only be accepted within the time
period as mentioned in Clause 11.6 of policy. However, in the present case
as the said amount was not deposited within three days, the renewal of the
license ought to have been refused and accordingly, the order dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16335
3 WP-11899-2025
27/02/2025 (Annexure P/1) be quashed.
4. Per contra, counsel for the State have opposed the prayer and
submitted that in the present case the amount was deposited by respondent
No.4 within three working days and the instructions of Commissioner were
sought. The Commissioner vide communication dated 05/03/2025
specifically instructed that as the license fee was deposited within stipulated
period of three days, no further action was required to be taken in the matter
and accordingly, the deposit made by the respondent No.4 has been accepted.
It is further contended by the counsel that the petitioner has no locus standi
to file this petition in the case of renewal. The petitioner or any other liquor
contractor had no right and the right only accrues when the bids are invited.
The present case is a case of renewal in which, no other party has any right
to say anything or intervene and therefore, in absence of any locus, this
petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. Counsel for the respondent No.4 in response submitted that the
petitioner has no locus to file this petition. Senior Counsel for the respondent
No.4 seriously disputed the locus of the present petitioner and submitted that
the present petitioner has no nexus with the renewal of the respondent's
license, yet he has ventured upon to approach this Court by way of present
petition. There exists no right in favour of the petitioner and hence the
petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of locus standi only.
6. In the connected petition i.e WP No.11899/2025, the petitioner
has prayed for the following reliefs:
"I. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16335
4 WP-11899-2025
respondent No.1 to 3 may kindly be directed to auction
the shop of Single Group Waidhan SGL F-1 District
Singrauli.
II. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus
respondent no.3 may kindly be directed to re-auction
the shop.
III. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus
respondent No.3 may kindly be directed to act as per
clause 11.6 and 11.7 of the excise policy dated
15/02/2025."
7. The counsel in WP No.11899/2025 in the similar terms has
submitted that in the present case there is no decision in favor of respondent
No.4 and therefore, as the deposit has not been made within the stipulated
time, the respondents are duty bound to auction the shop of composite
Group, Waidhan SGL F-1 District Singrauli while acting as per Clause 11.6
and 11.7 of the policy.
8. Counsel for respondent No.4 submits that he is willing to adopt
the argument advanced by Shri D.K. Dixit-Senior Advocate in the connected
petition i.e WP No.9285/2025.
9. Heard rival submissions of the parties in both the petitions. As
there is preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of these petitions
on the ground of locus standi, hence the aforesaid objection is being dealt
with.
10. A perusal of the record reflects that vide Annexure P/1 District
Excise Officer, vide communication dated 27/02/2025 had informed
respondent No.4 that the application for renewal of liquor license SGL F-1
Waidhan was accepted and accordingly as per the said communication dated
27/02/2025, respondent No.4 was directed to deposit the license fee to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16335
5 WP-11899-2025
tune of Rs.86,50,002/- to E-Excise Portal. According to the petitioner the
aforesaid amount has not been deposited by respondent No.4 within three
working days and the said amount was deposited on fourth day by
respondent No.4. So far as the petitioner in WP No.9825/2025 is concerned,
a perusal of the petition reflects that the petitioner has not disclosed his
identity in the entire petition, nor there is any assertion or averments
regarding the locus of the present petitioner. In paragraph 7(ii)of the prayer
clause, the petitioner has prayed as follows:
"7 (ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the concern Respondents to invite the new e-
tender for allotment of composite liquor shop and given
the preference to the petitioner."
11. A perusal of the aforesaid prayer reflects that the petitioner is
praying for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to invite new E-tender for allotment of composite liquor shop
and give preference to the petitioner. Simultaneously, in WP No.11899/2025,
the petitioner in paragraph 5.2 has stated that the petitioner is a registered
excise contractor and is duly registered under the E-Abhkari Madhya
Pradesh Excise Department. In prayer clause, there is a prayer for issuance of
writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.1 to 3 to
auction the composite Group Shop Waidhan, SGL F-1, District Singrauli and
there is further prayer for direction to the respondents to act in accordance
with Clause 11.6 and 11.7 of the policy.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16335
6 WP-11899-2025
12. This is a case where the respondent No.4 was already having a
license since 2022, and as per Clause 11.6 of the excise policy, the request
for renewal was made by respondent No.2 and in response to which,
communication dated 27/02/2025 (Annexure P/1) has been issued by District
Excise Officer, Singrauli. Therefore, apparently in the matter of renewal in
favor of respondent No.4, the petitioners in both the petitions have no locus
standi to challenge the acceptance or non-acceptance of renewal request
of respondent No.4 as no right has been accrued in favor of the present
petitioners. So far as the action of the official respondents regarding
acceptance of application for renewal of respondent No.4 is concerned, the
acceptance of renewal application of respondent No.4 does not confer any
right to the present petitioners.
13. A perusal of both the petitions reflect that the interest of the
petitioners are contingent and are dependent on the event when the
application for renewal moved by respondent No.4 is refused. The petitioners
have failed to demonstrate that what right they have in the matter of
consideration of application for renewal of respondent No.4. The petitioners
if are alleging violation of Clause 11.6 and 11.7 of the policy, and according
to them there is loss to the public exchequer, it is for them to take recourse to
Public Interest Litigation. Apparently, there is no prejudice to any of the
individual interest of the petitioners nor they have been able to show any
such prejudice in the present case. It is undisputed that there was already a
license in favour of respondent No.4 since 2022, therefore, renewal of the
said license is an issue between the department and respondent No.4 and no
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16335
7 WP-11899-2025
other party has any say in the matter of renewal. The third party will only
come in picture, when such renewal is refused and the recourse is taken to
allot the shop through open tender or auction.
14. The Apex Court in the case of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs.
Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and Othes reported in 1976 (1) SCC 671
held in paragraphs 34, 37 and 49 as under:
"34. This Court has laid down in a number of decisions
that in order to have the locus siandi to invoke the
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, an
applicant should ordinarily be one who has a personal
or individual right in the subject-matter of the
application, though in the case of some of the writs like
habeas corpus or quo warranto this rule is relaxed or
modified. In other words, as a general rule,
infringement of some legal right or prejudice to some
legal interest inhering in the petitioner is necessary to
give him a locus standi in the matter, (see State of
Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta [1951 SCC 1024 : AIR
1952 SC 12 : 1952 SCR 28] ; Calcutta Gas Co. v. State
of W.B. [AIR 1962 SC 1044 : 1962 Supp (3) SCR 1]
; Ram Umeshwari Suthoo v. Member, Board of
Revenue, Orissa [(1967) 1 SCA 413] ; Gadde
Venkateswara Rao v. Government of A.P. [AIR 1966
SC 828 : (1966) 2 SCR 172] ; State of
Orissa v. Rajasaheb Chandanmall [(1973) 3 SCC 739]
; Satyanarayana Sinha Dr v. S. Lal & Co. [(1973) 2
SCC 696 : (1973) SCC (Cri) 1002] ).
37. It will be seen that in the context of locus standi to
apply for a writ of certiorari, an applicant may
ordinarily fall in any of these categories: (i) "person
aggrieved"; (ii) "stranger"; (iii) busybody or
meddlesome interloper. Persons in the last category are
easily distinguishable from those coming under the first
two categories. Such persons interfere in things which
do not concern them. They masquerade as crusaders for
justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono
publico, though they have no interest of the public or
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16335
8 WP-11899-2025
even of their own to protect. They indulge in the
pastime of meddling with the judicial process either by
force of habit or from improper motives. Often, they are
actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap
popularity; while the ulterior intent of some applicants
in this category, may be no more than spoking the
wheels of administration. The High Court should do
well to reject the applications of such busybodies at the
threshold.
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."
15. The Apex Court in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District
Collector Raigad and Ors. reported in (2012) 4 SCC 407 held in paragraphs
58 and 59 as under:
"58. Shri Chintaman Raghunath Gharat, ex-President
was the complainant, thus, at the most, he could lead
evidence as a witness. He could not claim the status of
an adversarial litigant. The complainant cannot be the
party to the lis. A legal right is an averment of
entitlement arising out of law. In fact, it is a benefit
conferred upon a person by the rule of law. Thus, a
person who suffers from legal injury can only challenge
the act or omission. There may be some harm or loss
that may not be wrongful in the eye of the law because
it may not result in injury to a legal right or legally
protected interest of the complainant but juridically
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16335
9 WP-11899-2025
harm of this description is called damnum sine injuria .
59. The complainant has to establish that he has been
deprived of or denied of a legal right and he has
sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In case
he has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on,
he cannot be heard as a party in a lis. A fanciful or
sentimental grievance may not be sufficient to confer a
locus standi to sue upon the individual. There must be
injuria or a legal grievance which can be appreciated
and not a stat pro ratione voluntas reasons i.e. a claim
devoid of reasons."
16. The Apex Court again in the case of Raju Ramsingh Vasave
Vs. Mahesh Deorao Bhiavapurkar and Ors. reported in (2008) 9 SCC 54 has
held as under:
"We must now deal with the question of locus standi. A
special leave petition ordinarily would not have been
entertained at the instance of the appellant. Validity of
appointment or otherwise on the basis of a caste
certificate granted by a committee is ordinarily a matter
between the employer and the employee. This Court,
however, when a question is raised, can take cognizance
of a matter of such a grave importance suo motu. It may
not treat the special leave petition as a public interest
litigation, but, as a public law litigation. It is, in a
proceeding of that nature, permissible for the court to
make a detailed enquiry with regard to the broader
aspects of the matter although it was initiated at the
instance of a person having a private interest. A deeper
scrutiny can be made so as to enable the court to find
out as to whether a party to a lis is guilty of commission
of fraud on the Constitution. If such an enquiry
subserves the greater public interest and has a far
reaching effect on the society, in our opinion, this Court
will not shirk its responsibilities from doing so. (see
also: Manohar Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
(2012) 3 SCC 619. In Vinoy Kumar Vs. State of U.P.,
AIR 2001 SC 1739, this Court held:
"Even in cases filed in public interest, the court can
exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16335
10 WP-11899-2025
party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal
injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or
determined class of persons is, by reason or poverty,
helplessness or disability or socially or economically
disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for
relief."
23. Thus, from the above it is evident that under
ordinary circumstances, a third person, having no
concern with the case at hand, cannot claim to have any
locus-standi to raise any grievance whatsoever.
However, in the exceptional circumstances as referred
to above, if the actual persons aggrieved, because of
ignorance, illiteracy, inarticulation or poverty, are
unable to approach the Court, and a person, who has no
personal agenda, or object, in relation to which, he can
grind his own axe, approaches the Court, then the Court
may examine the issue and in exceptional
circumstances, even if his bona fides are doubted, but
the issue raised by him, in the opinion of the Court,
requires consideration, the Court may proceed suo-
motu, in such respect. Therefore, in view of the above,
no case is made out for interfering with the order dated
4-10-2013."
17. The Apex Court in the case of K. Kumar Gupta Vs. Sri
Markendaya and Sri Omkareswara Swamy Temple and Ors. reported in in
2022 5 SCC 710 has held in paragraphs 24, 25 and 26 as under:
24. By the impugned judgment and order by ordering
re-auction, the Division Bench of the High Court has
permitted both, the appellant as well as the original writ
petitioner to participate in the re-auction. It is to be
noted that as such the original writ petitioner never
participated in the public auction, which was
conducted/held on 24-6-1998. Therefore, by such a
liberty being granted, the High Court has given one
another opportunity to the original writ petitioner, who
has died, and/or to his heirs to participate in the re-
auction, which liberty could not have been reserved. As
a result, the writ petition filed by the deceased petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16335
11 WP-11899-2025
Shri L. Kantha Rao has ceased to be a "public interest
litigation" but it is a litigation with a private mala fide
interest as the original writ petitioner had no locus to
file such a case, not being a participant in the auction
and being unable to point out any irregularity or
illegality in the auction.
25. Even the Division Bench of the High Court ought
not to have passed the impugned judgment and order in
an appeal preferred by the Temple Trust for the simple
reason that it was the Executive Officer of the Temple
Trust, who had conducted the auction; it was the
Executive Officer, who had obtained the clearance
certificate from the Income Tax Department and who
executed the sale deed in favour of the highest bidder--
appellant herein. At no point of time till the judgment
and order was passed by the learned Single Judge, the
Temple Trust had challenged the auction-sale on the
ground that the amount realised was inadequate.
Therefore, the Temple Trust could not have challenged
their own decision, which they had never challenged
earlier.
26. Similarly, the appeal preferred by the heirs of Shri
L. Kantha Rao also ought not to have been entertained.
Shri L. Kantha Rao never participated in the auction. He
never submitted any offer. The proceedings initiated by
Shri L. Kantha Rao were in the nature of a public
interest litigation and therefore being heir of Shri L.
Kantha Rao, his wife could not have been permitted to
prosecute further with the public interest litigation.
18. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court, it is
evident that in the present case the petitioners in absence of any right, have
approached this Court by way of the present petitions. The petitioners are
totally strangers to the renewal process in respect of license of respondent
No.4 Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain these petitions.
19. Accordingly, these petitions stand dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16335
12 WP-11899-2025
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
Astha
