Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113104 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18093 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shri Ram And 9 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Girish Chandra Maurya,Jitendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. Petitioners are complainants. On the complaint made by them proceedings were initiated against the fair price shop dealer/ Respondent No. 5, in terms of the provisions contained under U.P. Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In the aforesaid proceedings, an order dated 15.04.2025 was passed by the Respondent No. 2 namely Additional Commissioner (Administration), Kanpur Division, Kanpur in favour of the fair price shop dealer. 2. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition. 3. It is argued that large number of irregularities were committed by the Respondent No. 5 but the same were not look into by the Respondent No. 2/Additional Commissioner (Administration), Kanpur Division, Kanpur while passing the aforesaid order. 4. Nothing has been stated that how the petitioner is prejudice against the order dated 15.04.2025 passed by the Respondent No. 2. Apart from the same, nothing has been stated in the entire writ petition nor any argument has been made for challenging the validity of the aforesaid order. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 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"." 6. 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. 7. In this view of the matter, the present writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Swati Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad