Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:124622 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24453 of 2025 Petitioner :- Chitrasen Chaubey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Vijai Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rameshwar Prasad Shukla Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents and Sri Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No.6/Gram Panchayat. 2. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner is a complainant and he made a complaint against the respondent No.6/Pradhan of Village Gopalpur, Vikas Khand Chilkahar, Ballia along with notary affidavit before the respondent No.2/District Magistrate, Ballia on 27.12.2024. On the aforesaid complaint, Inquiry Committee was constituted which submitted its report before the respondent No.2. After going through the aforesaid report, respondent No.2 passed an order dated 26.04.2025 by which the complaint was disposed of with certain observations. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, petitioner has preferred present petition. 3. Nothing has been stated in the writ petition nor any arguments have been made on which ground he has preferred the present petition and what prejudice has been caused to the petitioner with the order impugned. 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 the petition lacks merits and the same is liable to be dismissed and the writ petition is hereby dismissed. 7. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 saqlain Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad