Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3211 (ALL)

URMILA DEVI v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-09-20

RAN VIJAI SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead concerned gaon sabha as one of the respondents and serve the copy of the writ petition to learned counsel for the gaon sabha during the course of the day. 2. Heard Sri Anshul Kumar Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri R.C. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the gaon sabha. 3. Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 15.5.2015 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bairiya, Ballia by which Smt. Rambha Tiwari (the respondent No. 5) has been appointed as fair price shop agent. 4. The impugned order of appointment of fair price shop agent has been challenged on number of grounds, but on being confronted as to what is the locus standi of the petitioners and as to whether they have participated in the open meeting of gaon sabha for appointment of fair price shop agent and they are person aggrieved, learned counsel for the petitioners very fairly submitted that the petitioners have never participated in the open meeting of the gaon sabha, but they are person aggrieved. 5. The controversy, as to who can said to be person aggrieved, is no more res integra. The meaning of expression “person aggrieved” may vary according to the context of the Statute and facts of the case nevertheless normally, a person aggrieved must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance; a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongly deprived him of something or wrongfully refused something, or wrongfully affected his title to someone. 6. In M.S. Jayaraj v. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala and others, (2000) 7 SCC 552 , the Supreme Court considered the matter at length and placing reliance upon a large number of its earlier judgments including the Chairman, Railway Board and others v. Chandrima Das (Mrs.) and others, AIR 2000 SC 988 ; held that the Court must examine the issue of locus standi from all angles and the petitioner should be asked to disclose as what is the legal injury suffered by him. 7. The term “person aggrieved” was also considered and defined in Re: Sidebotham, (1880) 14 Ch. 7. The term “person aggrieved” was also considered and defined in Re: Sidebotham, (1880) 14 Ch. D. 458, wherein it has been observed as under : “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 a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something or wrongfully affected his title to something.” 8. In K. Ramadas Shenoy v. The Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council, Udipi and others, AIR 1974 SC 2177 , the Supreme Court examined the case of a resident of a locality where a cinema hall was to be constructed contrary to the Building Town Planning Scheme. The resident was held to be entitled to maintain writ on the ground that the residential area would stand spoiled by the construction in violation of the statutory provisions and the municipal authorities owed a public duty and an obligation under the Statute not to allow the construction of a cinema hall in a residential area. The Supreme Court observed as under : “... The question whether an individual who is one of a class for whose benefit such an obligation is imposed can or cannot enforce performance by an action must depend on the purview of the legislature in the particular statute. Injury may be caused either by the fulfillment of the duty cast by statute or by failure to carry it out or by negligence in its performance. In order to succeed in an action for damages for breach of statutory duty the plaintiff must establish a breach of a statutory obligation which, on the proper construction of the statute was intended to be a ground of civil liability to a class of persons of whom he is one. He must establish an injury or damage of a kind against which the statute was designed to give protection.” 9. In the Nagar Rice and Flour Mills and others v. N. Teekappa Gowda & Bros. He must establish an injury or damage of a kind against which the statute was designed to give protection.” 9. In the Nagar Rice and Flour Mills and others v. N. Teekappa Gowda & Bros. and others, AIR 1971 SC 246 , the Supreme Court rejected the claim of an existing Mill owner that in case any other Mill is shifted to the locality wherein his Mill is situated, he would be adversely affected, therefore, has a locus standi to maintain the suit/writ. The Supreme Court held that the right to carry on business being fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution, its exercise is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the law in the interest of general public under Article 19 (6) (i) of the Constitution. 10. The “person aggrieved” means a person who is wrongfully deprived of his entitlement which he is legally entitled to receive and it does not include any kind of disappointment or personal inconvenience. “Person aggrieved” means a person who is injured or he is adversely affected in a legal sense. (Vide K.N. Lakshminarasimaiah v. Secretary, Mysore S.T.A.T., (1966) 2 Mys LJ 199). 11. Whether a person is injured in strict legal sense, must be determined by the nature of the injury considering the facts and circumstances involving in each case. A fanciful or sentimental grievance may not be sufficient to confer a standi to sue upon the individual. There must be injuria or a legal grievance, as the law can appreciate and not a stat pro ratione valuntas reasons. 12. In the case of R.V. London Country Keepers of the Peace of Justice (1890) 25 QBD 357, the Court held as under: “A person who cannot succeed in getting a conviction against another may be annoyed by the said findings. He may also feel that what he thought to be a breach of law was wrongly held to be not a breach of law by the Magistrate. He thus may be said to be a person annoyed but not a person aggrieved, entitle to prefer an appeal against such order.” 13. In Messrs. Swami Motor Transport (Private) Ltd. v. Messrs. He may also feel that what he thought to be a breach of law was wrongly held to be not a breach of law by the Magistrate. He thus may be said to be a person annoyed but not a person aggrieved, entitle to prefer an appeal against such order.” 13. In Messrs. Swami Motor Transport (Private) Ltd. v. Messrs. Raman & Raman (Private) Ltd. and others, AIR 1961 Mad 180 , a Full Bench of Madras High Court, while considering the provisions of Madras Motor Vehicles Act, considered the issue and approved the law laid down in The King v. Richmond Confirming Authority, (1921) 1 KB 248; and The King v. Groom and others, 1901 (2) KB 157, and laid down the principle as under : “The true principle is to determine whether the applicant has an interest distinct from the general inconvenience which may be suffered by the law being wrongly administered.” As would appear from the narration of fact that there is no legal injury to the petitioner’s right by assessment of tax upon respondent No. 4 by the Chairman, Nagar Panchayat and in my opinion, the petitioner will not fall in the ambit of person aggrieved, therefore, he had no locus standi either to file appeal or to challenge the tax assessment order and appellate order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable.” 14. This Court in the case of Nasrudin v. State of U.P. and others, 2015(11) ADJ 557 , has also taken the same view. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, in my opinion, there may be irregularity or illegality in the appointment of respondent No. 5 as fair price shop agent, but the petitioners cannot be said to a person aggrieved, as they had neither participated in the open meeting of the gaon sabha, nor their case is that no notice, whatsoever, was given to them before the meeting of the gaon sabha and that is why, they had not been able to participate in the selection of the fair price shop agent, therefore, in my opinion, the writ petition on the instance of the petitioner is not maintainable. 15. In view of the aforesaid legal position, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable on the instance of the petitioners.