1 WP / 112 / 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 112 OF 2025 Rahul S/o. Babanrao Bhagwat Age – 42 years, Occu – Business and Social Work, R/o. Orkid Ambiance, Patrakar Chowk, Sawadi, Ahilya Nagar .. Petitioner Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra, Higher and Technical Education Department, New Administrative Building, 3rd Floor, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2] The Vice Chancellor, Savitribai Phule Pune University, Sports and Physical Education Association, Near IUCAA, Ganeshkhind, Pune 3] Mallakhamb Federation of India Shri Dharam Vir Singh, Secretary – General D-2/2271 Vasant Kunj, New Delhi .. Respondents ... Advocate for petitioner : Mr. Vishant P. Kadam AGP for the respondent – State : Mrs. V.N. Patil - Jadhav ... CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ. DATE : 06 JANUARY 2025 ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) : We have heard the learned advocate for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is coming with following prayers : “(B) By issuing the Writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, as the case may be, this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 to decide the application dated 2025:BHC-AUG:284-DB 2 WP / 112 / 2025 18.12.2024 and direct the respondent no. 2 to rearrange the matches of the mallakhamb competition as the respondent no. 2 not followed the procedure framed by the respondent no. 3. (C) By issuing the Writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, as the case may be, this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 1 and 2 to follow the rules framed by the respondent no. 3 while conducting the Mallakhamb Competition in the state.” 3. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that respondent no. 2 – University has been conducting Mallakhamb competition without following the rules and norms prescribed by respondent no. 3 which is the Mallakhamb Federation of India. He points out that a poor girl by name ‘Gauri’, who had participated in the competition, is unable to afford any legal battle and being a social worker, the petitioner is espousing her cause. Her application dated 18-12-2024, is not being entertained by the principal of the college. 4. Ex facie, the petitioner who is a stranger, having no locus standi and having no cause for himself, has filed the present petition and is soliciting the afore-mentioned order / direction. 5. Assuming for the sake of arguments that girl ‘Gauri’ is aggrieved by and may be entitled to have the reliefs being claimed by the petitioner but even she is not a party before us. The petitioner, for the reasons best known to him, has not joined her either with him or in the array of the respondents. 3 WP / 112 / 2025 6. The petitioner, having no cause of action to seek the reliefs, the petition is dismissed. [ PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGE arp/