Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86482 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16535 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vinod Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Keshawa Prasad Pandey,Krishna Chandra Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the records. 2. The petitioner is complainant and on the basis of his complaint an order was passed by the District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar on 15.02.2008 by which he has directed the subordinate authorities not to initiate enquiry in the complaint of the petitioner without his permission. Aggrieved against the aforesaid petitioner filed a petition before this Court under Article 227 No.1753 of 2016. The said writ petition was disposed of by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgement and order dated 28.03.2016. Pursuant to the aforesaid fresh representation was made by the petitioner before the District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar on 22.11.2023. Since no decision was taken on the said complaint petitioner again approached this Court by filing Writ C No.26951 of 2024, which was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgement and order dated 06.01.2025 by which respondent no.2 was directed to pass reasoned and speaking order on the representation of the petitioner. Pursuant to the aforesaid, order dated 03.04.2025 was passed by the respondent no.2. Aggrieved against the aforesaid petitioner has preferred present writ petition. By which direction was given that it is not a fit case to recall the order dated 15.02.2008 and 23.05.2023. 3. Nothing has been stated in the entire writ petition nor any argument has been advanced by the counsel for the petitioner that what prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the aforesaid order. 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 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 and the same is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 Pramod Tripathi Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad