HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION No. 4153 of 2006
Sitaram
...Petitioners
VERSUS
State of C.G. & Others
...Respondents
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA
! Shri Vivek Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner
^ Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 to 3
Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate for the respondent No. 4
Honble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J.
Dated:22/04/2010
: Judegment
ORDER (ORAL)
(Passed on 22nd day of April, 2010)
1. The petitioner, claiming himself to be a resident of
Gram Panchayat Jamdi, Janpad Panchayat Jaijaipur, District
Janjgir-Champa, has preferred this petition on the ground
that a complaint was made by him on 06.12.2005 (Annexure
P/1) with regard to non-payment of amount of Rs. 10,000/-
under the Pradhanmantri Gramoday (Gramin Awas) Yojna, Year
2003-2004 and various other complaints with regard to
certain financial irregularities committed by the respondent
No. 6. The respondent No. 6 was removed after enquiry by
order dated 03.05.2006 (Annexure P/5) but thereafter, he was
reinstated in service by order dated 05.06.2006 (Annexure
P/6).
2. The question in this petition is asto whether the
petitioner has any locus to prefer this writ petition
seeking a writ of mandamus to quash the order of
reinstatement of respondent No. 6 and further, a direction
to enquire into the various complaints.
3. It is well settled that a writ is maintainable only at
the instance of the aggrieved person/party. The petitioner
may be a resident of the same village and he might have
filed a complaint, but he is not personally aggrieved by the
order of reappointment of the respondent No. 6. It is a case
of the petitioner that enquiry is still pending against the
respondent No. 6 which has not culminated into exoneration.
4. Law is clear on the above point that no relief can be
granted to a person who is not personally aggrieved by an
order or any action. It is well settled that person
approaching this Court must be `aggrieved person’. The writ
petition at the instance of third party is not maintainable
except in case of public interest litigation petition,
habeas corpus or quo warranto.
5. The Supreme Court, in D.Nagaraj & Others v. State of
Karnataka & Others1, observed as under:
“7. The sole question that
requires to be determined in
these appeals is whether the
appellants could maintain the
aforesaid writ petitions. It does
not describe the classes of
persons entitled to apply
thereunder, the existence of the
right is implicit for the
exercise of the extraordinary
jurisdiction by the High Court
under the said Article. It is
also well established that a
person who is not aggrieved by
the discrimination complained of
cannot maintain a writ petition.”
6. Further, in Vinoy Kumar v. State of U.P. & Others2, the
Supreme Court observed as under:
“2. Generally speaking, a person
shall have no locus standi to
file a writ petition if he is not
personally affected by the
impugned order 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 a 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
organisation which can take care
of such cases.”
7. The petitioner seeks a roving enquiry on the basis of
certain allegations which cannot be granted in a writ
jurisdiction. It is for the authorities to consider the
complaint of the petitioner and if so warrants, the
respondent authorities may take appropriate steps.
8. The Supreme Court, in Dharampur Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd.
v. State of Uttaranchal & Others3, observed as under:
“83. It is, therefore, necessary
for the person making such
allegations to supply full
particulars in the petition. If
sufficient averments and
requisite materials are not on
record, the court would not make
“fishing” or roving enquiry”
9. Further, in Kurapati Mariadas v. Dr. Ambedkar Sewa
Samajan & Others4, the Supreme Court observed as under:
“It seems that in this case, the
High Court has gone out of its
way, firstly in relying on the
xerox copies of the service
record of the appellants and then
at the appellate stage, in
calling the files of the
Electricity Board where the
appellant was working. This
amounted to a roving enquiry into
the caste of the appellant which
was certainly not permissible in
writ jurisdiction.”
10. Applying the well-settled principles of law as
aforestated to the facts of the case wherein the petitioner
is not personally aggrieved by reinstatement of the
respondent No. 6, and secondly, a roving enquiry cannot be
directed under the garb of this petition, the petition is
bereft of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order asto
costs.
JUDGE
