Order Javed Iqbal Wani, J.—In terms of order of this court dated 07-10.2020, learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to address the Court on the question of maintainability of the writ petition as to how the petitioner in the petition can seek a mandamus for initiation of an enquiry and action thereof against the respondent No.4. 2. In response to above, according to the learned counsel, the grievance of the petitioner against the respondent No.4 is that he is a Government employee in Rural Development Department, Jammu, but has undertaken another occupation of photography in the name and style M/s. Regal Photo Flash Studio, Moti Bazar, Jammu. Learned counsel further states that the respondent No. 4 has suppressed this fact from the respondent No.1, where respondent No.4 is an employee. Learned counsel further submitted that on 30-05-2016, when the respondent No.4 was in service, he had opened a bank account with the J&K Bank, Talab Tiloo, in the name of the said photography shop showing himself as proprietor of the said shop. 3. According to the leaned counsel for the petitioner the respondent No. 4 cannot take another business or profession while being in active service of Government, which is against law. Learned counsel submits that the respondent No. 4 has committed gross violation of the provisions of service rules and regulations. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.4, since the inception of his service, is never regular and most of the time remains absent from his duties owing to the fact that he operates and runs his photography shop. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.4 is drawing salary from the Government, to which he is not otherwise entitled to in view of the above fact. 5. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner filed an application under RTI Act and sought attendance record of the respondent No.4 from the office of Assistant Commissioner, Rural Development Department, Udhampur. However, the concerned authorities, despite lapse of the statutory period, failed to provide the requisite information about the attendance of the respondent No.4, which, prima facie, substantiates the fact that the respondent No.4 has actually not been attending the office and thereby has been holding the post of BDO, Sewna, illegally. 6. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner brought to the notice of the respondent Nos. 6. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner brought to the notice of the respondent Nos. 1&2 the misconduct of the respondent No.4 and highlighted the negligence on the part of respondent No.4 before the authorities by medium of a complaint, requesting initiation of action against respondent No.4. 7. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner again filed an application under RTI Act and sought status of the complaint, which he was refused to by the authorities on the pretext that the case is under inquiry and the required information cannot be shared at this stage. 8. According to the learned counsel despite being approached by the petitioner, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, 3 did not take any action against private respondents 4 and thus allowed the illegality to perpetuate. 9. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the official respondents, being reluctant to initiate legal action against the respondent No.4 and appear to be hand in glove with each other. The official respondents, according to the learned counsel, are helping the respondent No.4 to tamper with the attendance records of his service. 10. According to the learned counsel the official respondents having failed to discharge their obligatory duty in accordance with law while dealing with the misconduct and commission of gross violation of the service rules by private respondent No. 4, the petitioner, fundamentally on the basis of aforesaid contentions, craves for the following relief in the petition: “ Writ of Mandamus so as to command the official respondents to conduct an enquiry and take necessary action against the respondent No.4 and decide the representation filed by the petitioner.” 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of aforesaid contentions would submit that the writ petition is maintainable having been filed for bringing transparency and efficiency in the department inasmuch as also to check illegal and unlawful actions in the department. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his aforesaid contentions referred to the judgment of this Court titled as “Nazir Ahmad Dar versus State of J&K and others, reported in 2006 1 JKJ 305 : 2005 0 SriLJ 622 . 13. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his aforesaid contentions referred to the judgment of this Court titled as “Nazir Ahmad Dar versus State of J&K and others, reported in 2006 1 JKJ 305 : 2005 0 SriLJ 622 . 13. While appreciating the judgement of this Hon’ble Court supra, it transpires that petitioner therein, a teacher in the Education Department, had been placed under suspension by the respondents after having a prima facie evidence that the petitioner, though being a Government employee, has simultaneously engaged himself in business in violation of the Service Conduct Rules and in particular against Rule 10 of the J&K Government Employees (Conduct) Rules, 1971. The petitioner being an aggrieved person himself had questioned the said suspension order in the petition. 14. Reverting to the question of maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and doctrine of locus standi law is settled by a long line of decisions of the Apex court including in case titled as “Vinoy Kumar Vs. State of UP and Ors. Reported in 2001 (4) SCC 734 ”, where in para 2 following is provided : “2. Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned action or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The exception to the general rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of habeas corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest. It is a matter of prudence, that the court confines the exercise of writ jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or legal injuries are caused to a particular person or his fundamental rights are violated, and not to entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the instance of third party where there is an effective legal aid organization which can take care of such cases. Even in cases filed in public interest, the court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined class of persons is, by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief.” 15. That otherwise also the issues involved in the instant petition demonstrate that the allegations leveled against the respondent No. 4 are disputed questions of facts, determination whereof may not appropriately be dealt with or adjudicated upon by this court while exercising extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226. 16. Having regard to the nature of controversy involved in the petition, the judgment supra, referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which is quite distinguishable, misplaced and misdirected and does not lend any support to the case of the petitioner particularly on the question of locus-standi of the petitioner to maintain the instant writ petition. 17. Thus in the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances coupled with the law laid down by the apex Court in “Vinoy Kumar Vs. State of UP and Ors. Reported in 2001 (4) SCC 734 supra, what emerges is that the petition is grossly misconceived with petitioner having no locus-standi to maintain the same. The petition thus entails dismissal and is, accordingly, dismissed, along with all connected CM(s).