Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:39221 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7525 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ram Anuj Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurodh Tripathi,Harish Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. The petitioner has preferred present writ petition inter-alia with the following prayer:- "(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent no.2 to decide the online Complaint No. 40019923006179 filed by the petitioner on 9.10.2023 within a stipulated period which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case." 2. From perusal of the averments made in the petition, it is clear that the petitioner is a complainant and after the complaint was made by him, cognizance of the same has been taken by the competent authority. Since no decision has been taken on the complaint of the petitioner, he filed the present petition. 3. 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". 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. Writ Petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 17.3.2025 Kumar Manish Digitally signed by :- MANISH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad