Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:127597 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25141 of 2025 Petitioner :- Amarvati Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Charan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition inter-alias with the prayer to conduct inquiry against the Respondent No. 5 namely Raghuveer Singh. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. From perusal of the record, it transpires that at no point of time any representation has been filed by the petitioner raising any personal grievances against the Respondent No.5. It further reveals from perusal of the representation that they were filed on behalf of members of the Gaon Sabha. 4. In this view of the matter, the Court is of an opinion that the representation has been filed on behalf of villagers in respect of which the petitioner has no locus to file the present writ petition. Nothing has been stated in the entire writ petition nor any argument has been raised regarding the locus of the petitioner to file the present writ petition before this Court. 5. 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"." 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 Court is of the opinion that the present petition on behalf of the petitioner is not at all maintainable since the petitioner is not falling in the definition of 'aggrieved person'. 8. In this view of the matter, no relief could be granted to the petitioner. This Court is dismissing this Writ Petition only on the ground that the petitioner does not have a locus-standi to file this Writ Petition. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 Swati Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad