Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:71574 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13870 of 2025 Petitioner :- Brahma Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A.P. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the following prayer:- "A. Issue a writ , Order or direction in the nature of Writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to decide the offline as well as online complaints bearing I.G.R.S. No. 40018924017945 and No. 40018925000308 dated 06.03.2025, 06.02.2025, 02.09.2024 as well as the other representations for the same cause of action appropriately to ensure the Fair Supply of the essential commodities to the villagers by the Fair Price Shop Dealer." 3. 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. 4. 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"." 5. 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. 6. In this view, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition on behalf of the petitioner is not at all maintainable since the petitioner is not falling in the definition of 'aggrieved person'. 7. In this view of the matter, no relief could be granted to the petitioner. This Court is dismissing this Writ Petition only on the ground that the petitioner does not have a locus-standi to file this Writ Petition. Order Date :- 5.5.2025 Arti Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad