HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 9535 of 2021 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J. HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the following prayers:- (I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents concerned to to vacate/demolish community latrine which is constructed in premises of school area Gata No.180; Rakba 0.3000hect, in Fasli year 1423-1428 in Khata No.00248, recorded in revenue record, which is situated in Village Purnaha, Tehsil- Chaurichaura, District-Gorakhpur. 2. When a query has been made by the Court from the counsel for the petitioner that what is his locus to file the present petition and what prejudice has been cause to the petitioner by construction of Community Latrin which has been constructed in the year 2020. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon paragraph 17 of the writ petition in which it is stated that the petitioner is a member of Gaon Sabha and he has right to do the work for welfare of the villagers but nothing has been stated regarding locus of filing of present petition. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Radhey Shyam Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent(s) : Arun Kumar, C.S.C., Sudhir Bharti Dheerendra Kumar Pandey .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. From perusal of the record, it is clear that vide order dated 17.08.2020, the construction of the Community Latrin has been stayed by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur but the aforesaid order has been vacated by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur itself vide order dated 26.09.2020 and the aforesaid order has not been challenged by the petitioner before any forum. 5. Nothing has been stated in the writ petition nor any arguments have been made what prejudice has been caused to the petitioner with the construction of the Community Latrin. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed reported in 1976 (1) SCC 671 held that a stranger who is not an aggrieved person cannot maintain a Writ for either Certiorari or Mandamus. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder:- "50. While a Procrustean approach should be avoided, as a rule, the Court should not interfere at the instance of a "stranger" unless there are exceptional circumstances involving a grave miscarriage of justice having an adverse impact on public interests. Assuming that the appellant is a "stranger", and not a busybody, then also there are no exceptional circumstances in the present case which would justify the issue of a writ of certiorari at his instance. On the contrary, the result of the exercise of these discretionary powers, in his favour, will, on balance, be against public policy. It will eliminate healthy competition in this business which is so essential to raise commercial morality; it will tend to perpetuate the appellant's monopoly of cinema business in the town; and above all, it will in effect, seriously injure the fundamental rights of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, which they have under WRIC No. 9535 of 2021 2 Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, to carry on trade or business subject "reasonable restrictions imposed by law"." 7. The same view was again taken by the Madras High Court in the case of Eswari vs. Chief Secretary of Government of Tamilnadu and others in Writ Petition No.27298 of 2021 decided on 25.1.2023. 8. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that since the petitioner does not come within the definition of aggrieved person, the petition is liable be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. October 7, 2025 saqlain WRIC No. 9535 of 2021 3 (Vivek Saran,J.) (Prakash Padia,J.) Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad