Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:125906 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24523 of 2025 Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar,Ram Krishna Patel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kunal Ravi Singh Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. Order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the Chairman/ Commissioner, Information Commission State of Uttar Pradesh/ Respondent No. 2 in Appeal No. S06/A/0258/2024 is under challenge. Order reads as follows:- " आददश अपपलपय पकरण पसततत हहआ। पतककर करकई गई। अपपलकरर उपससरत आयद । ववपकप जन ससचनक अधधककरप ककयकरलय धजलक ववदकलय वनरपकक, अलपगढ , अनतपससरत हह । पतकवलप पर ववपकप पधकनकचकयर, सवकमप कक षणकननद इणटर ककलदज जलकलप, अलपगढ कक मदल पत वदनकनक 27.05.2025 उपलबध हह धजसमद उनहहनद ससचनकएन उपलबध करकनद कद धलए 20 वदन कक समय पदकन करनद कक अनतररध वकयक हह । ववपकप कक उक आवददन सवपककर वकयक जकतक हह। ववपकप जन ससचनक अधधककरप कर अवसर वदयक जकतक हह कक वह ससचनक उपलबध करककर अवगम सतनवकई वतधर पर आयरग कर अवगत करकए। पकरण वकसतद अवगम सतनवकई वदनकनक 24.07.2025 कर पदश हर । " 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 and Shri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2. 3. After going through the aforesaid order which is quoted above, the Court is of opinion that no prejudice whatsoever has been caused to the petitioner by the aforesaid order. Nothing has been stated in the entire writ petition nor any argument has been raised that what prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. 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 present writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 29.7.2025 Swati Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad