Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:55763 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11164 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Singh,Swatantra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. The petitioner has preferred present writ petition inter-alia with the following prayer:- "(a). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to take appropriate decision upon the application of the petitioner dated 31.01.2025 pending before him within stipulated period as filed by this Hon'ble Court." 2. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is a complainant and complaint was made by him against the Ex-Gram Pradhan and present Gram Pradhan since no action was taken hence present writ petition was filed. 3. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner is a private person and 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. It is further argued that 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. At this stage, a prayer has been made by counsel for the petitioner to dismiss present writ petition as not pressed. 6. 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 to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 16.4.2025 Pramod Tripathi Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad