[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Patidar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh Through ... on 2 December, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35149
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 2nd OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 3234 of 2025
RAKESH PATIDAR AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH COLLECTOR AND
OTHERS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Ayush Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Rohit Kumar Mangal, learned counsel for the respondents 5
to 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing the
public notice dated 28.06.2024 and 15.01.2025 issued by respondent
No.1 and for setting aside the order dated 11.12.2024 passed by
respondent No.2.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35149
2. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for
the respondents to the effect that since the petitioners are only
complainants on the basis of whose complaint the proceedings were
initiated they do not have any right to prefer a Writ Petition. Their
status at best can be that of a witness during the investigation and in
subsequent proceedings but that would not entitle them to prefer a Writ
Petition before this Court. Reliance has been placed on the decision of
the Apex Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir V/s. District Collector,
Rajgarh AIR 2012 SC 1339 and Division Bench judgment of this
Court in W.A. No.768/2022 (Pankaj Parasar V/s. State of M.P. and
Others) decided on 11.07.2022 and W.A. No.64/2021 (M.P.
Karmchari Congress V/s. State of M.P. and Others) decided on
10.02.2021.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
petitioners are very much parties interested in the subject matter of the
dispute. They have a very good case on merits. It is they who are the
complainants on the basis of whose complaint the investigation was
commenced and the FIR was lodged and proceedings have been taken
pursuant thereto. They thus very much have the locus to prefer this
petition. Reliance has been placed on the decision of High Court of
Calcutta in WPA No.11359/2021 (Shri Biplab Das V/s. Tamralipta
Municipality and Others) decided on 09.05.2024, Raju Ramsingh
Vasave V/s. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar and Others (2008) 9 SCC
54, Adichunchanagiri Maha Samstana Mutt Represented by its
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35149
Chairman V/s. State of Karnataka 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 4,
Rajesh Kumar Surana V/s. State of Bengal and Others 2018 SCC
OnLine Cal 9795, High Court of Calcutta in WPA No.5602/2022
(Amarendra Nath Chanda and Another V/s. Midnapur
Municipality and Others) decided on 27.04.2022, M.S.Jayaraj V/s.
Commissioner of Excise, Kerala and Others (2000) 7 SCC 552.
4. The Division Bench of this Court in M.P. Karmchari
Congress (supra) has categorically held that since the status of the
petitioner therein is that of a complainant at the most he can lead
evidence as witness but he cannot claim the position of adversarial
litigant. The complainant cannot be a party to the lis. He cannot be
permitted to meddle in the administrative matter to dictate a transfer
order which does not affect him. Thus a person who raises a grievance
must show that he has suffered some legal injury.
5. The aforesaid judgment was relied upon by the Division Bench
of this Court in Pankaj Parasar (supra) wherein the order of the Writ
Court in the case of M.P. Karmchari Congress (supra) was referred
to wherein it was held that a person who has suffered or suffers from
legal injury can challenge the action in a Court of law. A Writ Petition
can be preferred only by a person aggrieved whose legal right has been
infringed. A legal right means an entitlement arising out of legal rules.
The status of the petitioner being that of a complainant he could have at
best led evidence as a witness and he cannot be a party to the lis.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35149
5. The Apex Court in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (supra)
has also held to the same effect i.e. complainant cannot be party to the
lis at most he can lead evidence as a witness. He cannot be an
adversarial litigant. It has been held 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 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.
60. Under the garb of being a necessary party, a person cannot
be permitted to make a case as that of general public interest. A
person having a remote interest cannot be permitted to become a
party in the lis, as the person who wants to become a party in a case,
has to establish that he has a proprietary right which has been or is
threatened to be violated, for the reason that a legal injury creates a
remedial right in the injured person. A person cannot be heard as a
party unless he answers the description of aggrieved party. (Vide
Adi Pherozshah Gandhi v. Advocate General of Maharashtra
[(1970) 2 SCC 484 : AIR 1971 SC 385] , Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v.
Roshan Kumar [(1976) 1 SCC 671 : AIR 1976 SC 578] , Maharaj
Singh v. State of U.P. [(1977) 1 SCC 155 : AIR 1976 SC 2602] ,
Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal [(2002) 1 SCC 33] and Kabushiki
Kaisha Toshiba v. Tosiba Appliances Co. [(2008) 10 SCC 766] )
The High Court failed to appreciate that it was a case of political
rivalry. The case of the appellant has not been considered in the
correct perspective at all."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35149
6. Thus in view of the authoritative pronouncement by the Apex
Court as well as two Division Benches of this Court it is not necessary
to consider the judgments as relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner of other High Courts.
7. In the present case also the status of the petitioners is that of
complainant. Though on their complaint investigation was commenced
and FIR was lodged but that would not confer upon them the status of
an adversarial litigant. It has not been pointed out as to what personal
legal injury has been inflicted upon the petitioners. No legal rights of
theirs have been stated to have been violated. The petitioners being
complainant cannot be a party to the lis and at best can lead evidence as
witnesses in the proceedings. Since they have not suffered any legal
injury they cannot maintain this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the petitioners
do not have any locus to maintain this petition. The same is accordingly
dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail such remedy as
may be available to them under the law.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
ns
