1 WPT No. 56 of 2025 2025:CGHC:29863 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 56 of 2025  Santosh Agrawal (Goyal) S/o Late B.N Agrawal, aged about 62 years, R/o Ward No 36, Mahatma Gandhi Nagar, Janta Martket Power House Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. Union of India, through its Secretary Finance Department New Delhi. 2. Union of India, through its Director General of GST Intelligence, Raipur Zonal Unit, 4th floor, RIO Complex, Lalpur, Dhamtari Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Finance Department and, Mahanadi Bhavan Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4. Income Tax Department through its Commissioner Civil Line, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5. R.K. Structure, Pvt. Ltd. its Director:- (i) Mr. Manoj Sarogi S/o Late Stayanarayan Sarogi, R/o Ring Road No. 2, Sondongri Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (ii) Rakesh Sarogi S/o Late Stayanarayan Sarogi, R/o Ring Road No 2, Sondongri Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.07.07 10:57:08 +0530 2 WPT No. 56 of 2025 (iii) Rajesh Sarogi S/o Late Stayanarayan Sarogi, R/o Ring Road No 2, Sondongri Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (iv) Sunita Sarogi, R/o Ring Road No 2, Sondongri, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 6. R.K. Ispat Trading Company through its partners:- (i) Mr. Manoj Sarogi S/o Late Stayanarayan Sarogi R/o Ring Road No 2, Sondongri Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (ii) Rajesh Sarogi S/o Late Stayanaran Sarogi, R/o Ring Road No 2, Sondongri, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 7. R.K. Ispat Udyog, through its partners:- (i) Mr. Manoj Sarogi S/o Late Stayanarayan Sarogi, R/o Ring Road No 2, Sondongri, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (ii) Rajesh Sarogi S/o Late Stayanarayan Sarogi, R/o Ring Road No 2, Sondongri, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner :- Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate. For UOI-Respondents :- Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, DSGI For State-Respondent :- Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate. For Respondent No.4 :- Mr. Vijay Chawla, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 02/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition stating inter alia that he has filed a complaint to the GST and Income Tax Officials against the private respondents herein with regard to tax evasion, though notices have been issued, but no further action has been taken by the GST and Income Tax 3 WPT No. 56 of 2025 Officials against the private respondents, therefore, the petitioner prays for appropriate direction against respondents No.5 to 7 to pay tax relating to GST and Income Tax. 2. Mr. B.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that though notices have been issued on the petitioner’s complaint, but further action is not being taken by the GST and Income Tax officials and respondents No.5 to 7 are evading tax, therefore, appropriate direction be issued. In support of his submission he relied upon the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Dr. Avinash Samal v. State of Chhattisgarh through the Principal Secretary, Department of Law & Legislative Affairs and others 1 . 3. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Mr. Sharad Mishra & Mr. Vijay Chawla, learned counsels for the respective respondents, would make an objection against the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that the relief is mainly sought from the authorities of Income Tax Department and GST Department and the petitioner has no locus to file the 1 2018 SCC OnLine Chh 999 (WA No.270 of 2016; decided on 27.07.2018) 4 WPT No. 56 of 2025 present petition, as such, the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records meticulously. 5. Article 226 of the Constitution of India confers power on the Court to issue any person or authority including in appropriate cases any writ for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part-III or for any other purpose. Though the discretion conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are very wide in nature, but it has to be exercised in circumspect manner. There has to be some right vested in the person invoking the jurisdiction of the Court. In absence of any right being infringed, prejudiced or adversaly affected, the Court would be slow in invoking such jurisdiction. 6. It is also a settled proposition that in order to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner should ordinarily be a person who has a personal or individual right in the subject matter except in 5 WPT No. 56 of 2025 the writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus or quo warranto. 7. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v . Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and Others 2 while dealing with a matter with regard to aggrieved person who has locus standi to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India held as under:- “12. According to most English decisions, in order to have the locus standi to invoke certiorari jurisdiction, the petitioner should be an “aggrieved person” and, in a case of defect of jurisdiction, such a petitioner will be entitled to a writ of certiorari as a matter of course, but if he does not fulfil that character, and is a “stranger”, the Court will, in its discretion, deny him this extraordinary remedy, save in very special circumstances. xxx xxx xxx 34. This Court has laid down in a number of decisions that in order to have the locus standi to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, an applicant should ordinarily be one who has a personal or individual right in the subject-matter of the application, though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto this rule is relaxed or modified. In other words, as a general rule, infringement of some legal right or prejudice to some 2 (1976) 1 SCC 671 6 WPT No. 56 of 2025 legal interest inhering in the petitioner is necessary to give him a locus standi in the matter, (see State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta [1951 SCC 1024 : AIR 1952 SC 12 : 1952 SCR 28] ; Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of W.B. [AIR 1962 SC 1044 : 1962 Supp (3) SCR 1] ; Ram Umeshwari Suthoo v. Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa [(1967) 1 SCA 413] ; Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Government of A.P. [AIR 1966 SC 828 : (1966) 2 SCR 172] ; State of Orissa v. Rajasaheb Chandanmall [(1973) 3 SCC 739] ; Satyanarayana Sinha Dr v. S. Lal & Co. [(1973) 2 SCC 696 : (1973) SCC (Cri) 1002] ). 37. It will be seen that in the context of locus standi to apply for a writ of certiorari, an applicant may ordinarily fall in any of these categories: (i) “person aggrieved”; (ii) “stranger”; (iii) busybody or meddlesome interloper. Persons in the last category are easily distinguishable from those coming under the first two categories. Such persons interfere in things which do not concern them. They masquerade as crusaders for justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. They indulge in the pastime of meddling with the judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often, they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity; while the ulterior intent of some applicants in this category, may be no more than spoking the wheels of administration. The High Court should do well to reject the applications of such busybodies at the threshold. xxx xxx xxx 7 WPT No. 56 of 2025 49. It is true that in the ultimate analysis, the jurisdiction under Article 226 in general, and certiorari in particular is discretionary. But in a country like India where writ petitions are instituted in the High Courts by the thousand, many of them frivolous, a strict ascertainment, at the outset, of the standing of the petitioner to invoke this extraordinary jurisdiction, must be insisted upon. The broad guidelines indicated by us, coupled with other well- established self-devised rules of practice, such as the availability of an alternative remedy, the conduct of the petitioner etc. can go a long way to help the courts in weeding out a large number of writ petitions at the initial stage with consequent saving of public time and money.” 8. Similarly, the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai (supra) has been followed in the matter of Mani Subrat Jain and Others v. State of Haryana and Others 3 in which their Lordships have observed as under :- “9. ………... It is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something. (See Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th 3 AIR 1977 SC 276 8 WPT No. 56 of 2025 Edn., Vol. I, para 122; State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha [(1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 488 : (1974) 1 SCR 165] ; Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed [(1976) 1 SCC 671 : (1976) 3 SCR 58] and Ferris : Extraordinary Legal Remedies, para 198.)” 9. Coming to the facts of the present case in light of principles of law laid down in the above stated judgments, it is quite vivid that the petitioner had filed a complaint against respondents No.5 to 7 herein to the GST and Income Tax Officials pursuant to which, it appears from the records that notices were issued to respondents No.5 to 7 and the Government – authorities are seized of the matter thereafter, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition. However, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate as to how he was personally affected by inaction, if any, on the part of the GST and Income Tax Officials. The petitioner has also not shown any injury or harm suffered by him due to inaction of the respondents–authorities, he has not been subjected to a legal wrong, he has suffered no legal grievance and even, it is well settled law that one who has no personal interest in the subject matter, and whose rights have not been violated, cannot claim to be an aggrieved person. As such, the petitioner is not a person aggrieved and has no 9 WPT No. 56 of 2025 locus standi to seek writ of mandamus against the respondents–authorities and this is not the writ petition seeking a writ of quo warranto. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, this will not bar the petitioner to ventilate his grievances, if any, before the appropriate authority. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- - Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit