Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 18018 (ALL)

AALIM v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

WRIC/5183/2025 · 2025-04-20

Prakash Padia

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:59399 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5183 of 2025 Petitioner :- Aalim Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mridul Chandra Tiwari,Vatsala Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. Present writ petition is filed by the petitioner inter-alia with the prayer to quash the order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the Commissioner (Food and Supply) Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur in Case No. 1550 of 2023, Computerized Serial No.C202309000001550 (Sohan Versus Sub Divisional Officer, Kairana, Shamli) under Section 13(1) of U.P. Schedule Commodities (Sale and Distribution) 2004. 2. Facts in brief in the present case are that petitioner is complainant. On his complaint, an inquiry was initiated by the respondent no.2-Commissioner (Food and Supply) Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur. Pursuant to aforesaid, an order dated 20.11.2023 was passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Kairana, District Shamli against the respondent no.3-Sohan. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, respondent no.3 filed an appeal before the respondent no.2- Commissioner (Food and Supply) Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur, which was numbered as Appeal No. 1550 of 2023, same was allowed vide judgment and order dated 13.01.2025. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. Nothing has been stated in the entire writ petition nor any argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that how he is aggrieved against the decision dated 13.01.2025 taken by the respondent no.2-Commissioner (Food and Supply) Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Nothing has been stated in the entire writ petition nor any argument has been raised that what and in which manner, the prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the Commissioner (Food and Supply) Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur in Case No. 1550 of 2023. Law is well settled that a stranger who is not an aggrieved person cannot file a Writ for either Certiorari or Mandamus. 5. 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 Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, to carry on trade or business subject "reasonable restrictions imposed by law"." 6. 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. 7. 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 and no prejudice has been caused to him by the aforesaid orders, the petition is liable be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. 8. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 21.4.2025 T.S. Digitally signed by :- TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad