Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90120 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17140 of 2025 Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prachi Shukla,Shashi Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. Heard learned cousnel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is a card holder and he made a complaint against fair price shop dealer respondent No.4/Tahir Ali. On his complaint, licesne of the petitioner has been cancelled on 19.11.2022. Aggrieved with the aforesaid, the respondent No4 preferred an appeal being Appeal No.643 of 2023 which was allowed by the Additional Commissioner-II, (Judicial) Kanpur Division, Kanpur vide its order dated 05.10.2023. Aggrieved with the aforesaid, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is a non-speaking order. Hence the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. On the other hand, it is argued by learned Standing Counsel that nothing has been stated in the writ petition nor any arguments have been made by learned counsel for the petitioner that what prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the order of the commissioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. From perusal of the record, it is clear that no pleadings have been made in the entire writ petition that what prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the order impugned and nor any arguments have also been raised before this Court. 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 the petitioner lacks merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 saqlain Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad