Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amarsingh Kadam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 January, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1398
1 WP-6002-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 20th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 6002 of 2024
AMARSINGH KADAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Amit Singh Sisodia, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Tarun Pagare, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
1. Heard on the question of admission.
2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 22.08.2022
passed by the Chief Executive Officer and prescribed authority (Panchayat),
Jila Panchayat, Khargone whereby the proceedings against respondents No.4
and 5 have been closed with the observations as made therein.
3. The petitioner is an Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Gogawan.
He had filed a complaint on 08.08.2017 along with certain other persons
against respondents 4 and 5 as regards commission of financial irregularities.
On the basis of the said complaint proceedings were initiated against
respondents 4 and 5 which have ultimately culminated in passing of the
impugned order exonerating respondents 4 and 5 from the proposed recovery
against them.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1398
2 WP-6002-2024
4. Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 has raised a preliminary
objection as regards locus of the petitioner submitting that the petition is not
maintainable since the petitioner is not an aggrieved person hence the same
deserves to be dismissed.
5. In Avaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan V/s. State of Maharashtra and
Others (2013) 4 SCC 465 the Apex Court has held that it is only the person
who suffers or has suffered any legal injury who can challenge the
act/action/order in a Court of law. The rights under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India can be enforced only by an aggrieved person, except in
the case where prayer is for Habeas Corpus or quo warranto. Another
exception is filing of a public interest litigation. It has been 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. Infact, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1398
3 WP-6002-2024
right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the
same. (Vide : State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta,
AIR 1952 SC 12; Saghir Ahmad & Anr. v. State of
U.P., AIR 1954 SC 728; Calcutta Gas Company
(Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., AIR
1962 SC 1044;4 SC 2736; and Tamilnad Mercantile
Bank Shareholders Welfare Association (2) v. S.C.
Sekar & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 784).
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. Chanji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York, AIR
1974 SC 1719; and State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Union
of India & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 1361)."
6. The petitioner has not pleaded as to how he is aggrieved by the
impugned order passed by the respondents and as to in what manner his legal
rights have been infringed upon. The contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner that due to acts of respondents 1 to 3, respondents 4 and 5 would
be able to retain the embezzled amount with them would not bring the
petitioner within the ambit of "aggrieved person". The status of the petitioner
in the present case is of a complainant. At the most he could lead evidence as
witness as has been held by this Court by order dated 19.10.2020 passed in
W.P. No.15272/2020 (Ritesh Kalam and Another V/s. State of M.P. and
Others) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner. However only
because the petitioner could have been a witness in the proceedings, he
cannot challenge the order only on the ground that he was not summoned as
a witness by respondents 1 to 3 and it would not confer upon him the status
of an aggrieved person. Merely for the petitioner feeling that he was required
to be summoned as a witness, he cannot claim the status of adversarial
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1398
4 WP-6002-2024
litigant.
7. In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner itself it has been held that a complainant cannot be a party to the
lis. A legal right is an averment of an entitlement arising out of law. A person
who raises a grievance must show that he has suffered some legal injury.
Apart from stating that he is a complainant the petitioner has not shown that
any of his statutory or legal right has been affected.
8. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, in my opinion, the
petitioner does not have locus to maintain this petition which is accordingly
dismissed for the said reason.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
ns
