The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a Gram Panchayat member challenging an order restoring a seized Gram Pradhan's powers. The court held the petitioner lacked locus standi as he was neither an aggrieved party nor had his legal rights violated.
Writ petition dismissed as petitioner lacked locus standi.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 53
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7866 of 2019 Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishal Tandon, Rahul Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Thakur Prasad Dubey
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Vishal Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Siddharth Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondents no.1 & 2 and Sri Thakur Prasad Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.
The petitioner is resident of village Ghonda, Post Ronda, Tehsil & District Moradabad and also member of Gram Panchayat of said village.
It appears that the respondent no.3 has been elected as Gram Pradhan in December, 2015 and on account of some charges against the respondent no.3, financial and administrative power of respondent no.3 was seized by respondent no.2 District Magistrate by order dated 12.04.2017. Thereafter, by order dated 23.10.2018, the financial and administrative power of respondent no.3 was restored by respondent no.2 holding that the excess payment paid, in respect of interlocking CC Tiles and drainage, has been deposited by the petitioner. The said order also recites that the Village Development Officer was also responsible for excess payment for aforesaid matter.
The petitioner in the present writ petition has challenged the aforesaid order 23.10.2018 of respondent no.2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon proviso to Section 95(1) (g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as 'Act, 1947') to contend that once the Gram Pradhan has been found guilty, his financial and administrative power cannot be restored until and unless he is exonerated and, therefore, the order of the respondent no.2 restoring financial and administrative power is illegal and in the teeth of proviso to Section 95(1) (g) of Act, 1947.
Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner is member of the Gram Panchayat and has no locus standi to file the present petition. On the said point, he has relied upon the judgement of Division Bench of this Court in the cases of Dharam Raj Vs. State of U.P. & others 2010(2)AWC 1878 , Amin Khan Vs. State of U.P. & others 2008(4) ADJ 559 (DB) and the judgement of the Apex Court in
the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad and others (2012) 4 SCC 407 .
Thus, he contends that the petitioner has no locus to file the petition is liable to be dismissed by this Court. He further contends that the order of the District Magistrate restoring the financial and administrative power is correct and there is no illegality in the said order as there is no loss to the State in the instant case.
In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this Court in Writ-C No.12423 of 23018 ( Pradeep Kumar and another Vs. State of U.P. & others ) has held that the complainant has right to approach this Court against an illegal order inasmuch as the District Magistrate himself to be an officer who has decided in favour of respondent no.3 and he would not come to this Court to point the defects in the order
I have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the record.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a member of Gram Panchayat. By the order impugned in the writ petition, neither the petitioner is an aggrived party nor his legal or statutory right is violated. This Court in the case of Amin Khan (supra) has held that the complainant cannot be permitted to become a party in the lis . Relevant paragraphs no. 14 & 15 are extracted herein below:-
"14. We may further clarify that the right of the petitioner to continue as one of the Members of three Members Committee pending regular enquiry against the Pradhan, is not a vested right nor he has a legal right to continue. More so, as the petitioner claims to be the complainant, he ought not to have been allowed to be a member of the Committee to look after the work of Pradhan. In case he was a complainant, he could be, at the most, examined as a witness in the enquiry but he cannot be permitted to become a party in the lis. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not have any locus standi to maintain the appeal, and the application for leave to appeal is liable to be rejected.
15. In view of the above, we record that none of the rights of the petitioner has adversely been affected under the impugned judgement so as to categorize him an 'aggrieved party'.
Further the Apex Court in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (supra) has affirmed the principle laid down by this Court in the case of Amin Khan (supra) . Paragraphs no. 59 & 60 of judgement of Apex Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (supra) are extracted herein below:-
" 59. The complainant has to establish that he has been deprived of or
denied of a legal right and he has sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In case he has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on, he cannot be heard as a party in a lis. A fanciful or sentimental grievance may not be sufficient to confer a locus standi to sue upon the individual. There must be injuria or a legal grievance which can be appreciated and not a stat pro ratione valuntas reasons i.e. a claim devoid of reasons.
60. Under the garb of being necessary party, a person cannot be permitted to make a case as that of general public interest. A person having a remote interest cannot be permitted to become a party in the lis, as the person wants to become a party in a case, has to establish that he has a proprietary right which has been or is threatened to be violated, for the reason that a legal injury creates a remedial right in the injured person. A person cannot be heard as a party unless he answers the description of aggrieved party. (Vide: Adi Pherozshah v. H.M. Seervai, Advocate General of Maharashtra, AIR 1971 SC 385 ; Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 578 ; Maharaj Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 2602 ; Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal & Ors., (2002) 1 SCC 33 ; and Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tosiba Appliances Company & Ors., (2008) 10 SCC 766) . The High Court failed to appreciate that it was a case of political rivalry. The case of the appellant has not been considered in correct perspective at all."
In other case, Dharam Raj (supra) , this Court again reiterated the same principle. Paragraphs 12, 13 & 14 of the judgement of this Court in Dharam Raj (supra) are extracted herein below:-
" 12. According to our opinion a "person aggrieved" means a person who is wrongly 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.
13. It is settled law that a person who suffers from legal injury only can challenge the act/action/order etc. by filing a writ petition. Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable for enforcing a statutory or legal right or when there is a complaint by the petitioner that there is a breach of the statutory duty on the part of the authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right for the enforcement of which the writ jurisdiction can be resorted to. The Court can enforce the performance of a statutory duty by public bodies through its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided such person satisfied the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of said right is the condition precedent to invoke the writ jurisdiction [Utkal University etc. v. Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi and others, AIR 1999 SC 943 and Laxminarayan R. Bhattad and others v. State of Maharashtra and another, (2003) 5 SCC 413.
14. Legal right is an averment of entitlement arising out of law. It is, in fact, an advantage or benefit conferred upon a person by a rule of law, [Shanti Kumar R. Canji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York, AIR 1974 SC 1719 and State of Rajasthan v. Union of India and others, AIR 1977 SC [361]."
The controversy in hand is squarely covered by the aforesaid
three judgements of this Court.
So far as the judgements relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the facts of the present case for the reason that said judgement has not noticed the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (supra) . The judgement of this Court in Pradeep Kumar (supra) is no help to the petitioner.
The Apex Court in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others AIR 2013 SC 58 has also laid down same proposition that under ordinary circumstances, a third person, having no concern with the case at hand, cannot claim to have any locus standi or to raise grievance whatsoever. In the said judgement, the Apex Court further held that in a very exceptional circumstances, the Court can examine the issue at the instance of third person. The present case, does not fall in the exception culled out in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (supra) .
Since, the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition. This Court is not entering into the question of legality of the order impugned in the writ petition.
The writ petition is dismissed .
Order Date :- 17.4.2019 S.Sharma
2 issues framed by the court
whether a complainant against a Gram Pradhan has locus standi to challenge an order restoring his powers
whether the petitioner is an aggrieved party capable of filing a writ petition under Article 226
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dharam Raj Vs. State of U.P. & othersRelied on¶9
Dharam Raj Vs. State of U.P. & others 2010(2)AWC 1878
Amin Khan Vs. State of U.P. & othersRelied on¶9
Amin Khan Vs. State of U.P. & others 2008(4) ADJ 559 (DB)
Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad and othersRelied on¶10
Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad and others (2012) 4 SCC 407 · Who else cites this
Pradeep Kumar and another Vs. State of U.P. & othersDistinguished¶12
Writ-C No.12423 of 23018 (Pradeep Kumar and another Vs. State of U.P. & others)
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and othersRelied on¶28
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others AIR 2013 SC 58 · Who else cites this
Adi Pherozshah v. H.M. Seervai, Advocate General of MaharashtraReferred¶19
Adi Pherozshah v. H.M. Seervai, Advocate General of Maharashtra, AIR 1971 SC 385 · Who else cites this
Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors.Referred¶19
Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 578 · Who else cites this
Maharaj Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.Referred¶19
Maharaj Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 2602 · Who else cites this
Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal & Ors.Referred¶19
Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal & Ors., (2002) 1 SCC 33 · Who else cites this
Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tosiba Appliances Company & Ors.Referred¶19
Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tosiba Appliances Company & Ors., (2008) 10 SCC 766 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Raj Kumar Singh
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Saral Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
