Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:132202 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25354 of 2025 Petitioner :- Padam Singh And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Dev,Rahul Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. The petitioner is a complainant. He made a complaint against the sitting Pradhan of the Village namely Sri Laxmi Chand/respondent no.4. On the said complaint enquiry officers were appointed as per provisions contained under U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 and show cause notice was issued to the respondent no.4/Pradhan. 2. Since no decision has been taken on the complaint made by the petitioners, some of the petitioners approached this Court by filing a petition being Writ C No.3297 of 2025. Pursuant to the aforesaid, impugned order has been passed in favour of the respondent no.4. Aggrieved against the aforesaid petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 3. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that though a complaint was made by the petitioners on various grounds but none of them were taken into consideration by the authorities during the course of the enquiry. 4. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Standing Counsel regarding the locus of the writ petitioners. It is further argued that no prejudice whatsoever has been caused to the petitioner by the order passed by the respondent no.2 in favour of respondent no.4. Nothing has been stated in the entire writ petition nor any argument has been raised that what prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by the impugned order passed by the respondent no.2 in favour of respondent no.4. 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 present writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 6.8.2025 Swati Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad