HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 31597 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent No.2 & 3 to take a decision in pursuant of an order/direction issued by Human right Commission, Lucknow within short stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.2 to decide the petitioner's representation dated 01.08.2025 pending before the District Magistrate, Ghazipur (respondent no.2) within short stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court. (iii) Issue any such other and further suitable writ, order of direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (iv) Award the cost of writ petition." 3. The petitioner is only a complainant and not an aggrieved person. The settled law is that a writ petition can be maintained only by a person whose legal rights have been infringed. A stranger or a mere complainant, who is not directly affected, has no locus to challenge such an order. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhai Kumar Singh, Awadhesh Kumar Singh, Babban Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Shiv Prasad Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. In Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors., (1976) 1 SCC 671, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a person who is not an aggrieved party cannot maintain a writ petition unless he demonstrates infringement of a legally enforceable right. The principle has been reiterated in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2013) 4 SCC 465, wherein it was held that only a person who suffers a legal injury can invoke the writ jurisdiction. 5. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of this Court in Smt. Anita Kumari v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2021 (5) ADJ 470, wherein this Court has held that "a stranger to the proceedings, who is not affected directly or whose legal rights are not infringed, cannot maintain a writ petition merely on the basis of being a complainant." 6. In the present case, the petitioner has no enforceable right to challenge the appointment of dependents of freedom fighter in Government service as none of his rights is prejudiced. 7. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the writ petition is dismissed. October 9, 2025 NS WRIC No. 31597 of 2025 2 (Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad