HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 18054 of 2026 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, 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 directing the respondent no.1 (State U.P. through Principal of U.P. Secretary/Secretary (Co-Operative), U.P. Government at Lucknow and respondent no.4 (District Magistrate/Collector, Agra) to decide the application/written complaint of the petitioner dated 17.11.2025 and 02.12.2025 within a stipulated period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.4, District Magistrate, Agra to produce/submit the report of three member team/committee. iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 1 and 4 to take departmental proceeding as well as criminal proceeding initiated against the respondent no.3 along with other erring employees of Co-Operative Society, District Agra and lodged the First Information Report against them under the relevant sections on the basis of written complaint moved by the petitioner before the respondent nos. 1 and 4." 3. The petitioner is only the complainant and not an aggrieved person. The settled law is that a writ petition can be maintained only by a person Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Chandra Pal Singh, Satyvrat Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Shyamsingh Chahar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) whose legal rights have been infringed. A stranger or a mere complainant, who is not directly affected, has no locus to seek such a relief. 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 seek direction upon the respondents to initiate departmental proceeding or lodge an FIR against the respondent no.3 along with other erring employees of Co- Operative Society, District Agra as none of his rights are prejudiced. 7. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the writ petition is dismissed. May 7, 2026 Kuldeep WRIC No. 18054 of 2026 2 (Garima Prashad,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- KULDEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad