[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jyoti Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 February, 2026
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11831
1 WP-46348-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 11 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 46348 of 2025
JYOTI PATEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Suman Rohit - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Vineet Singh - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :
(i) To issue writ of mandamus directing the authority-respondent no.1
and 2 to cancel the illegally issued BPL Card of respondent no.3
immediately in terms of the inquiry report.
(ii) To direct the respondents concerned to take appropriate action
against the officers responsible for.
(iii) Any other writ, order or direction deemed fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case necessary be also padded with costs of the
petitioner.
2. It is a case of the petitioner that BPL Card has been issued to private
respondent No.3 even though he is not eligible as per criteria prescribed by the
authorities. Therefore, the petitioner preferred an application for inquiry and to
cancel the BPL Card. Thought the matter was inquired into but the respondents-
authorities have failed to perform their statutory duty. Hence, this petition.
3. A specific question is put to petitioner's counsel to explain the locus to file
this petition. She submits that the petitioner is a resident of Village Ramgadha
Post Kukalpur Tahsil Patera District Damoh (M.P.). The petitioner seeks
cancellation of BPL Card issued to private respondent No.3. However, the fact
remains that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11831
2 WP-46348-2025
filed by a person who has suffered legal injury. It is a settled provision of law that
a person can approach the Court by filing a writ petition if he has suffered a legal
injury.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinoy Kumar vs State of U.P.
reported in (2001) 4 SCC 734 has held as under :
"2. Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ
petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his
fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded
nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his
acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The
relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is based on the existence of a
right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The exception to
the general rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of
habeas corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest. It is a matter of
prudence, that the court confines the exercise of writ jurisdiction to
cases where legal wrong or legal injuries are caused to a particular
person or his fundamental rights are violated, and not to entertain cases
of individual wrong or injury at the instance of third party where there is
an effective legal aid organisation which can take care of such cases.
Even in cases filed in public interest, the court can exercise the writ
jurisdiction at the instance of a third 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 of poverty,
helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged
position, unable to approach the court for relief."
5. The petitioner has failed to point out any legal injury being caused to her.
Mere resident of a particular area does not give locus to the petitioner to approach
the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking such relief. In
absence of any locus to the petitioner, no relief can be extended to her.
6. The petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
VV
