ORDER Sanjay Yadav, J. 1. Petitioner, a citizen without disclosing his status, but taking shelter of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India has approached this Court vide this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to High Level Scrutiny Committee constituted as per direction in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others: (1994) 6 SCC 241 , to immediately take action on the complaint filed by the petitioner in respect of caste status of respondent no. 5 who belongs to Katiya Caste. 2. Certificate dated 29.12.2004 certifying the respondent no. 5 being Scheduled Caste "Katiya" was issued by the Competent Authority, the Sub Divisional Officer Cum Certifying Officer on the basis of the detail enquiry as is apparent from the documents on record as Annexure P-1. 3. Grievance put forth by the petitioner is that the proper enquiry was not held. It is urged, that had there been a proper enquiry the authorities would have noted that respondent no. 5 is "Kshatriya" by Caste and not "Katiya". It is urged, that respondent no. 5's, sister got married in a Rajput Community that being so the respondent no. 4 has falsely got herself the Scheduled Tribe Certificate issued. Be that as it may. 4. The petitioner has failed to disclose the prejudice caused to him by the issuance of said Caste Certificate. Petitioner admittedly is not the "Katiya" by Caste. Besides, the petitioner has failed to establish his locus to question the issuance of Caste Certificate in favor of respondents. 5. In the context of present case petitioner cannot be said to be a "person aggrieved". To borrow a definition of the expression from a decision reported in 1880-14 Ch.D 458 Wherein James L.J opined "But the words "person aggrieved " do not really mean a man who is disappointed of a benefit which he might have received if some other order had been made. A" person aggrieved" must be a man who has suffered legal grievance, which has wrongfully refused him something or wrongfully affected his title to something". 6. The said proposition finds approval by the Courts in India (please see Jhabba Lal V. Shib Charan and others: AIR 1917 All 160, Balgovind and another V. Changanlal Laxminarayan and another: AIR (33) 1946 Nag 24 at page 26 Column -C-1. 7. 6. The said proposition finds approval by the Courts in India (please see Jhabba Lal V. Shib Charan and others: AIR 1917 All 160, Balgovind and another V. Changanlal Laxminarayan and another: AIR (33) 1946 Nag 24 at page 26 Column -C-1. 7. In V.D. Kumarappan V. Secretary, Home Department, Trivandrum: AIR 1960 Ker 378 , the learned single Judge placing reliance on the principle as laid down by James LJ. In Ex Parte Sidebotham. In re, Sidebotham, (1880) 14 Ch. D.458 observed: The words "affected by the order", in law must therefore imply, that the order must bring about or produce a change in the petitioner's legal rights. In short the words "affected" and "aggrieved" though not synonymous and analogous. I think, adopting partially the language of Ferris in his work on Extraordinary Legal Remedies, page 199, an order may be said to affect a person when it is "directed against him or his property in the sense that the enforcement of the decision would involve some special immediate and in its effect a direct injury to his interests". I am not satisfied that this has been established by the petitioner. 8. Therefore, though the petitioner is a citizen of India having fundamental right guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution, unless establishes any of his legal right or even a fundamental right infringed because of the issuance of Caste Certificate in favor of respondent no. 5 cannot as a matter of right maintain a challenge in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner then would be a mere busy body. 9. That being so, the petition being devoid of substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.