HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 25278 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J. 1. The supplementary affidavit filed today in the Court, the same is taken on record. 2. It is stated in the supplementary affidavit as well as in the writ petition that the petitioner is a complainant and he made a complaint, supported by affidavit, against the against respondent No.8/Inkar Ali sitting Pradhan of the village Sarkari Manjara, Aakanagar, Post Matkheda Tehsil & Block Swar, District Rampur, copy of which is appended as Annexure No.10 of the affidavit. Pursuant to the aforesaid complaint, a three members Inquiry Committee was constituted who conducted the Inquiry. The aforesaid committee submitted its report on 03.04.2025, copy of the same is appended as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition. It is stated in the aforesaid report that the allegations made in the complaint was not found correct. Not satisfied with the inquiry report, the petitioner made a representation before the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Rampur on 09.05.2025 to inquire the matter again. Since no action has been taken in the aforesaid representation, the petitioner has preferred the presentation. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter should be inquired again. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shriprakash Shrivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Avid Ali .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 7 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. On the other hand, it is argued by learned Standing Counsel that after making proper inquiry on the complaint of the petitioner, once a decision has been taken by the three member of committee, there is no locus of the petitioner to challenge the findings recorded by the Inquiry Committee before this Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Nothing has been stated in the writ petition nor any arguments have been made what prejudice has been caused to the petitioner with the order impugned. 7. 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 WRIC No. 25278 of 2025 2 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"." 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. September 15, 2025 saqlain WRIC No. 25278 of 2025 3 (Prakash Padia,J.) Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad