Sunita Agarwal, J.@mdashHeard Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Veerendra Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.5.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Food) Allahabad Division Allahabad.
The brief facts of the case are that on the complaint made by the petitioner alongwith other villagers of village Gobra, Post-Chhatarhara, Tehsil-Bara, District Allahabad, the agreement of fair-price shop settled in favour of the respondent No. 4 was suspended on 20.112007.
2. The preliminary inquiry was done by the Naib Tehsildar, Bara. The report was submitted prior to the suspension order dated 3.3.2008 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bara, District Allahabad. The respondent No. 4 submitted his explanation on 8.1.2008 to the charge sheet issued to him. Upon consideration of the reply submitted by the respondent No. 4 the agreement of fair-price shop of the respondent No. 4 was cancelled by order dated 3.3.2008 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bara, District Allahabad. Against the order dated 3.3.2008, the appeal was filed by respondent No. 4 which was allowed by the Additional Commissioner (Food) Allahabad Division Allahabad and agreement of fair price shop of the respondent No. 4 was restored,
3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was one of the complainant, at whose instance, inquiry was initiated against the respondent No. 4. The complainant has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 15.5.2012 passed by the appellate authority u/s 287 of U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order. As is evident from the narration of the fact given above, the petitioner is one of the complainant in the complaint filed against the respondent No. 4.
4. The preliminary objection has been raised by Shri Veerendra Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 as also learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 regarding right of the appellant, who is the complainant, to maintain the present petition.
5. Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently opposing the preliminary objection contended that petitioner is Antyodaya card holder and is aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent No. 4 in distribution of essential commodities to the petitioner and other card holders. He further submits that supplementary affidavit has been filed bringing on record that a criminal case has been registered against the respondent No. 4. As per Government Order dated 17.8.2008, the respondent No. 4 is not entitled to run the fair-price shop in the village. He further submits that by order dated 18.8.2008, one Muneem Chandra has been appointed fair price shop dealer. He further submits that preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the respondent is not entertainable in as much as petitioner is aggrieved person and has right to maintain the petition.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It is evident that petitioner was one of the complainant and cannot be said to be a person aggrieved rather he is a person annoyed. The present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner is not maintainable as he does not come within the ambit of person aggrieved.
The Division Bench of this Court in
12. According to our opinion a person aggrieved, means a person who is wrongly deprived of his entitlement which he is legally entitled to receive and it does not include any kind of disappointment or personal in convenience. "Person aggrieved" means a person who is injured or he is adversely affected in a legal sense.
13. It is settled law that a person who suffers from legal injury only can challenge the act/action/order etc. by filing a writ petition. Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable for enforcing a statutory or legal right or when there is a breach of the statutory duty on the part of the authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right for the enforcement of which the writ jurisdiction can be restored to. The Court can enforce the performance of a statutory duty by public bodies through its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided such person satisfied the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of the said right is the condition precedent to invoke the writ jurisdiction...
7. Another Division Bench decision in the case of Amin Khan v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (4) ADJ 559, held that "in case he was a complainant, he could be, at the most, examined as a witness in the enquiry but he cannot be permitted to become a party in the lis."
8. The same view was taken by this Court in writ petition 43824 of 2011, Huridutt Sharma and others v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 4.8.2011.
9. Counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in
In Bhikoba Shankar Dhumal (supra) the locus standi to file appeal against the order of Special Deputy Collector dropping the proceedings commenced under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act was under consideration.
10. The appeal was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 against the order passed by the Special Deputy Collector dropping the proceedings was held maintainable. In view of the fact that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were former landlord of the land which found part of the holding of Bhikoba, the Apex Court observed that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 cannot be characterised just a stranger to the proceedings. In the case of Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.) Sindri (supra) it was found that petitioner: Nos. 3 to 4 are worker employed in the factory and was held that worker employed in the factory being partner. Article 43-A of Constitution confers in principle, partnership status to worker and industry, therefore, the writ petition would be clearly maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution at their instance.
The facts of the: judgments of the Apex Court relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner are totally different from that of the present case and are of no benefit to the petitioner.
In view of the above observation, the petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
