Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84175 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16224 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sonu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rateesh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. Heard Sri B. P. Singh along-with Sri Rateesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 2. The facts in brief as contained in the writ petition is that petitioner is a complainant and ration card holder of Gram Panchayat, Bhojgarhi, Block-Sasni, District Hathras. The complaint was filed by the several persons against the fair price shop holder namely Amina Bano/respondent no.4. On the said complaint enquiry was conducted and thereafter, an order dated 10.01.2025 was passed by the respondent no.3-Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil-Sasni, District Hathras against the respondent no.4 and the fair price shop license of the respondent no.4 was cancelled. Aggrieved against the aforesaid respondent no.4 preferred an appeal before the respondent no.2 namely Additional Commissioner (Food and Supply), Aligarh, Division-Aligarh being Appeal No.93 of 2025. The said appeal was allowed by the respondent no.2 vide order dated 28.04.2025 hence the present writ petition. 3. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner is a complainant but he was not arrayed as one of the opposite party by the respondent no.4 while filing the appeal. It is further argued that no opportunity has been given to the petitioner by the respondent no.2 while allowing the appeal of the respondent no.4. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. From perusal of the record, it is clear that petitioner is only a complainant. Nothing has been stated in the entire writ petition nor any argument has been advanced that what prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the respondent no.2 in favour of the respondent no.4. 6. 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". 7. 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. 8. 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 :- 20.5.2025 Pramod Tripathi Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad