Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1348 (ALL)

Kuldeep Singh v. State Of U. P.

2020-11-19

DR.YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent nos.5 and 6, who were Secretary and Gram Pradhan of Village Panchayat Karamchandpur, Block Kamalganj, District Farrukhabad. The complaint was with regard to certain work carried out by the village panchayat. An enquiry was made by the competent officer and the complaint was found to be without substance. The enquiry officer held that the entire work carried out by the village Pradhan was satisfactory. The copy of the enquiry report dated 19.11.2019 was also forwarded to the petitioner as appears from the subsequent order dated 13.03.2020. In the background of the aforesaid fact the impugned orders dated 13.03.2020 and 27.06.2020 have been passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Farrukhabad. 3. In both the aforesaid impugned orders a finding has been recorded that in the enquiry the entire work was found to have been completed satisfactorily. 4. We do not find any good reason to interfere with the finding of the facts recorded by the respondent no.4 in the impugned orders. 5. Another aspect that requires to be taken note of is that the petitioner is a complainant. 6. It has been consistently held that only an aggrieved person can maintain a writ petition. In order to show that the petitioner is an aggrieved person, it must be demonstrated that he has a particular interest of his own beyond that of the general public with regard to the subject matter of the writ petition. There must be material to show that the petitioner has suffered some injury or has been denied or deprived of a legal right. In the absence of the aforesaid, he cannot be said to be a "person aggrieved" so as to maintain the writ petition. 7. In this regard we may refer to the decision in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v District Collector, Raigad and others (2012) 4 SCC 407 wherein it was held that in the absence of any injury to his legal right or legally protected interest, a complainant cannot claim status of a party to an adversarial litigation. 8. For the aforestated reasons we are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed.