HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 33547 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, 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: To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the ex parte impugned revisional order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the Special Secretary, Geology and Mining Department, Lucknow/respondent no. 2. 1. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the District Magistrate, Jalaun/respondent no. 3 to cancel the lease dated 02.02.2024 issued in favour of respondent no. 5. 2. 3. It is submitted that on the complaint of the petitioner, the lease granted in favour of respondent no. 5 was cancelled. Respondent no. 5 thereafter preferred a revision against the order dated 30.11.2024, which has been allowed by the revisional authority by order dated 05.03.2025. 4. 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. 5. 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 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashutosh Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Vikas Pandey .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Through Secretary Geology And Mining Department And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 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. 6. 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.” 7. Similarly, in Ram Khelawan v. State of U.P. & Ors., Writ-C No. 24693 of 2021, decided on 28.09.2021, this Court reiterated that “a complainant, who has no vested right in the lis, cannot question the validity of an order passed by the competent authority unless he is able to establish infringement of his own legal rights.” 8. In the present case, the petitioner has no enforceable right and, therefore, cannot challenge the revisional order. 9. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the writ petition is dismissed. September 23, 2025 Sumaira WRIC No. 33547 of 2025 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMAIRA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SUMAIRA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad