Dismissed

Shubham Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2025WRIA/18525/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a complainant seeking cancellation of an automatic testing center's authorization and action against fee realization. The Court held that a mere complainant or stranger to proceedings who is not directly affected has no locus to challenge such orders, as only an aggrieved person with infringed legal rights can invoke writ jurisdiction.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shubham Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 18525 of 2025

Shubham Kumar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 40

¶10

HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶12

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶13

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no.2 to cancel the authorization of Automatic Testing Center of respondent no.4 in other districts of the state,

¶14

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no.3 to take action against respondent no.4 for their illegal realization of fees.

¶15

iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent nos. 2 and 3 to decide the representation of the petitioner.

¶16

iv. Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶17

v. Award the cost of this writ petition to the Petitioners."

¶18

The petitioner is only a complainant and not an aggrieved person. The settled law is that a writ petition can be maintained only by a person whose legal rights have been infringed. A stranger or a mere complainant, who is not directly affected, has no locus to challenge such an order.

¶19

In Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors., (1976) 1 SCC 671, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a person who is not an aggrieved party cannot maintain a writ petition unless he demonstrates infringement of a legally enforceable right. The principle has been reiterated in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2013) 4 SCC 465 , wherein it was held that only a

¶20

WRIA No. 18525 of 2025

¶21

¶22

person who suffers a legal injury can invoke the writ jurisdiction.

¶23

In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of this Court in Smt. Anita Kumari v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2021 (5) ADJ 470, wherein this Court has held that "a stranger to the proceedings, who is not affected directly or whose legal rights are not infringed, cannot maintain a writ petition merely on the basis of being a complainant."

¶24

In the present case, the petitioner has no enforceable right to challenge the authorization of automatic testing center of respondent no.4 as per other district of the State.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid legal position, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶26

(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)

¶27

December 10, 2025 Kumar Manish

¶28

Digitally signed by :- MANISH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shubham Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shubham Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Triloki Mishra vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Baseem Ahmad vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Arun Kumar vs State of Up and 4 Others

Daroga Vishwakarma vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Neetu vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Priya Tripathi and Another vs State of U.P. and 5 Others