# Brij Lal @ Brij Bahadur v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 4 ILRA 246
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-07-27
- **Bench:** Suneet Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/brij-lal-brij-bahadur-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43445
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

4 All. Brij Lal @ Brij Bahadur Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
247
C S.C.

The petitioner, a resident of Village Sirsee Kala, Mahoba, filed a writ petition seeking directions for action
against the sitting Pradhan based on an enquiry report dated 28.02.2015. However, the petitioner admitted
that his complaint was not filed under either the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 or the MANREGA Act.

A preliminary objection was raised by the State that the writ petition is not maintainable, since the petitioner
is only a complainant and not an aggrieved person.

The Court examined the meaning of a "person aggrieved" and held that only a person who suffers a legal
injury or whose legal rights are affected can maintain such a petition. A mere complainant does not gain the
status of an aggrieved party.

The Court relied on several judgments, including:

Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad (2012) 4 SCC 407

Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 4 SCC 465

Dharam Raj v. State of U.P. (2010) 2 AWC 1878 (LB)

Ram Baran v. State of U.P. (2010) 2 AWC 1947 (LB)

Amin Khan v. State of U.P. (2008 (4) ADJ 559)

These authorities hold that a complainant has no locus standi to challenge the final orders passed by
authorities since he only triggered the proceedings but has no legal right affected by the outcome. Such a
person may be "annoyed" but is not an "aggrieved" person.

The Court observed that the complainant has limited rights under the 1997 Enquiry Rules, such as
participating in the enquiry and leading evidence (Rules 6(11) and 6(16)), but cannot seek directions for
action against the Pradhan.

Held:

The writ petition filed by the complainant is not maintainable, as he is not an aggrieved person and has no
enforceable legal right to seek such a direction.

The petition dismissed, with no costs.

## Text

246 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

16. The above cited authority is based upon an earlier decision Prabhu and another Vs. Dy.
Director of Consolidation and others 2013 (118) RD 48 which is in connection with the time
barred revision in proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The aforesaid
decision lays down that (i) When the statute provides limitation for approaching the Court and a
person approaches the Court after the expiry of the period of limitation, then he has to approach the
Court along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying extension of period
of limitation or to condone the delay in approaching the Court; (ii) Once the application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed and unless the delay is condoned, no order can be passed on
merit; and (iii) The delay cannot be condoned without having the version of other side and for that,
other side is required to be noticed and heard. Thus, it was held that the Deputy Director of
Consolidation erred in deciding the revision on merits without condoning the delay in its filing.

17. There are no two opinions on the propositions of law laid down above. The aforesaid
conditions cannot be applied with the same force to interlocutory applications or in cases where the
appeal or revision is not being decided on merits. The interlocutory applications stand on a much
lower level than the appeals or revisions. Therefore, they can be considered on merits immediately
after condoning the delay in filing such applications by a composite order provided parties are
given proper opportunity of hearing instead of waiting for a month as observed in Jais Lal (Supra)
in respect of hearing of revisions and appeals. Moreover none of the conditions as aforesaid stand
violated in the present case.

18. In view of the above, the condonation of the delay and the substitution of the petitioner or
the other heirs of the deceased-defendant is not at all illegal which may be disturbed by this Court
either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India.

19. The petition lacs merit and is dismissed.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.07.2015

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.

Writ C No.- 39658 Of 2015

Brij Lal @ Brij Bahadur ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Namit Kumar Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
4 All. Brij Lal @ Brij Bahadur Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
247
C S.C.

The petitioner, a resident of Village Sirsee Kala, Mahoba, filed a writ petition seeking directions for action
against the sitting Pradhan based on an enquiry report dated 28.02.2015. However, the petitioner admitted
that his complaint was not filed under either the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 or the MANREGA Act.

A preliminary objection was raised by the State that the writ petition is not maintainable, since the petitioner
is only a complainant and not an aggrieved person.

The Court examined the meaning of a "person aggrieved" and held that only a person who suffers a legal
injury or whose legal rights are affected can maintain such a petition. A mere complainant does not gain the
status of an aggrieved party.

The Court relied on several judgments, including:

Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad (2012) 4 SCC 407

Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 4 SCC 465

Dharam Raj v. State of U.P. (2010) 2 AWC 1878 (LB)

Ram Baran v. State of U.P. (2010) 2 AWC 1947 (LB)

Amin Khan v. State of U.P. (2008 (4) ADJ 559)

These authorities hold that a complainant has no locus standi to challenge the final orders passed by
authorities since he only triggered the proceedings but has no legal right affected by the outcome. Such a
person may be "annoyed" but is not an "aggrieved" person.

The Court observed that the complainant has limited rights under the 1997 Enquiry Rules, such as
participating in the enquiry and leading evidence (Rules 6(11) and 6(16)), but cannot seek directions for
action against the Pradhan.

Held:

The writ petition filed by the complainant is not maintainable, as he is not an aggrieved person and has no
enforceable legal right to seek such a direction.

The petition dismissed, with no costs.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suneet Kumar, J.)

1. The petitioner is resident of village Sirsee Kala, P.S Khanna, District Mahoba, the petitioner
is seeking a direction to the respondents for appropriate action against the persons responsible for
the irregularities as per enquiry report dated 28 February 2015.

2. Admittedly, the petitioner is seeking a direction against the siting Pradhan pursuant to a
complaint lodged by him. On a specific query as to whether the complaint has been filed under the
248 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
provisions of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1947 or under MANREGA Act, learned counsel for the
petitioner would submit that the complaint has not been filed under either of the provisions

3. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Standing Counsel regarding the
maintainability of the writ petition at the behest of the petitioner.

4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents would submit that the
petition at the behest of the complainant is not maintainable against the final order. Reliance has
been placed on Dharam Raj Versus State of U.P. and others, 2010 (2) AWC 1878 (LB), Ram
Baran Versus State of U.P. and others, 2010(2) AWC 1947 (LB) and Amin Khan Versus State
of U.P. and others, [2008(4) ADJ 559 (DB)].

5. The petitioner admittedly is a complainant in the present case, hence would not be a person
aggrieved.

6. The meaning of the expression 'person aggrieved' will have to be ascertained with reference
to the purpose and the provisions of the statute. One of the meanings is that person will be held to
be aggrieved by a decision if that decision is materially adverse to him. The restricted meaning of
the expression requires denial or deprivation of legal rights. A more legal approach is required in
the background of statutes which do not deal with the property rights but deal with professional
misconduct and morality. (Refer:-Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V.Dabholkar, (1975) 2
SCC 702, 710-11, paras 27 & 28).

7. Broadly, speaking a party or a person is aggrieved by a decision when, it only operates
directly and injuriously upon his personal, pecuniary and proprietary rights (Corpus Juris Seundem.
Edn. 1, Vol.IV, p.356, as referred in Kalva Sudhakar Reddy v.Mandala Sudhakar Reddy, AIR
2005 AP 45,49 para 10)

8. The expression 'person aggrieved' means a person who has suffered a legal grievance i.e a
person against whom a decision has been pronounced which has lawfully deprived him of
something or wrongfully refused him something. The petitioner is not an aggrieved person by
merely filing a complaint. The order of revocation of cessation of financial and administrative
powers do not affect him in any manner.

9. Recently Supreme Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir versus District Collector, Raigad and
others (2012) 4 SCC 407 was dealing with the removal of the President of Uran Municipal
Council under the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships
Act, 1965. The ex-President was the complainant, the Court was of the opinion that the
complainant cannot be party to the lis as he could not claim the status of an adversarial litigant. The
relevant extract is as follows:

"58. Shri Chintaman Raghunath Gharat, Ex-President was the complainant, thus, at
the most, he could lead the evidence as a witness. He could not claim the status of an adversial
4 All. Brij Lal @ Brij Bahadur Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
249
litigant. The complainant cannot be the party to the lis. A legal right is an averment of entitlement
arising out of law. In fact, it is a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. Thus, a person
who suffers from legal injury can only challenge the act or omission. There may be some harm or
loss that may not be wrongful in the eyes of law because it may not result in injury to a legal right
or legally protected interest of the complainant but juridically harm of this description is called
damnum sine injuria.

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 Gandhi v.
H.M. Seervai, Advocate General ofMaharashtra, 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."

10. Similarly, the Supreme Court in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan versus State of
Maharashtra and others (2013) 4 SCC 465, 466 was dealing with the issue of caste certificate
being challenged by a person who did not belong to the reserved category. The Apex Court
imposed exemplary cost of one lakh upon the stranger to the lis as he abused the process of the
Court to harass the appellant.
The Court held as follows:-

" 9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in
any proceeding, unless he satisfies the Authority/Court, that he falls within the category of
aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge
the act/action/order etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is
maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a
complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the
Authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on
the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can of course, enforce the performance
of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided
250 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The
existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is
implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that, the relief prayed for must be one to
enforce a legal right. Infact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said
jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the
appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as
regards the same. (Vide : State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, AIR 1952 SC 12; Saghir Ahmad
& Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 728; Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of
West Bengal & Ors., AIR 1962 SC 1044; Rajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1996
SC 2736; and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association (2) v. S.C. Sekar &
Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 784).

10.A "legal right", means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be
defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression,
"person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an
imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or
interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised. (Vide: Shanti Kumar R. Chanji v. Home
Insurance Co. of New York, AIR 1974 SC 1719; and State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Union of India &
Ors., AIR 1977 SC 1361)."

11. After 73 & 74 Constitutional Amendment, the local bodies have been conferred various
powers under Part IX and IX A of the Constitution. Paragraph 22, 23 & 24 of Ravi Yashwant
Bhoir's case (Supra) is relevant:

"22. Amendment in the Constitution by adding Parts IX and IXA confers upon the local
self Government a complete autonomy on the basic democratic unit unshackled from official
control. Thus, exercise of any power having effect of destroying the Constitutional Institution
besides being outrageous is dangerous to the democratic set-up of this country. Therefore, an
elected official cannot be permitted to be removed unceremoniously without following the
procedure prescribed by law, in violation of the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution,
by the State by adopting a casual approach and resorting to manipulations to achieve ulterior
purpose. The Court being the custodian of law cannot tolerate any attempt to thwart the Institution.

23. The democratic set-up of the country has always been recognized as a basic
feature of the Constitution, like other features e.g. Supremacy of the Constitution, Rule of law,
Principle of separation of powers, Power of judicial review under Articles 32, 226 and 227 of the
Constitution etc. (Vide: His Holiness Keshwananda Bharti Sripadagalvaru & Ors. v. State of Kerala
& Anr., AIR 1973 SC 1461; Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1980 SC
1789; Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr., AIR 2002 SC 2112; Special
Reference No. 1 of 2002 (Gujarat Assembly Election Matter), AIR 2003 SC 87; and Kuldip Nayar
v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 3127)
4 All. Brij Lal @ Brij Bahadur Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
251

24. It is not permissible to destroy any of the basic features of the Constitution even by
any form of amendment, and therefore, it is beyond imagination that it can be eroded by the
executive on its whims without any reason. The Constitution accords full faith and credit to
the act done by the executive in exercise of its statutory powers, but they have a primary
responsibility to serve the nation and enlighten the citizens to further strengthen a democratic
State."

12. The concept of master and servant relationship as applicable in service jurisprudence is not
applicable in case of elected heads of local bodies enjoying constitutional status. Full Bench
decision in Hafiz Ataullah Ansari versus State of U.P & Others 2011(3) ADJ 502 (FB), upon
considering the historical background of the institution of the Local Self Government was of the
view that they are no longer statutory bodies, but after 73 and 74 Constitutional amendments, have
acquired a Constitutional status.

13. In Suresh Singh versus Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad and others
(1993) 1 UPLBEC 414: 1993(1) AWC 601, in similar circumstances the Court was of the view
that the Up-Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha, who was appointed to function as Pradhan during the
intervening period of such cessation of administrative and financial powers had no right to be
heard.

14. A Division Bench in Amin Khan versus State of U.P and others 2008(2) AWC 2002:
(2008) 2 UPLBEC 1256 was of the opinion that a complainant had no locus to challenge the order
of the District Magistrate withdrawing the administrative and financial powers of the Pradhan. The
Court placed reliance upon Suresh Singh's case (Supra) as well as Smt. Kesari Devi versus State
of U.P & others 2005(4) AWC 3563.

15. This Court in Ram Baran Versus State of U.P. and others, 2010(2) AWC 1947 (LB),
again reiterated the principle that a complainant would have no locus to maintain the petition
against the final order passed by the District Magistrate pursuant to direction in a petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution against the Pradhan.

16. Division Bench in Dharam Raj Versus State of U.P. and others, 2010 (2) AWC 1878
(LB), held that the petition on behalf of the complainant against the licensee of fair price shop is
not maintainable against the final order passed by the competent authority as the complainant
cannot be said to have any grievance in the matter being not an aggrieved person rather is a 'person
annoyed'.

17. In the case of R. v. London Country Keepers of the peace of Justice, (1890) 25 Qbd
357, the Court held:

"A person who cannot succeed in getting a conviction against another may be annoyed by
the said findings. He may also feel that what he thought to be a breach of law was wrongly held to
be not a breach of law by the Magistrate.
252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

He thus may be said to be a person annoyed but not a person aggrieved, entitle to prefer
an appeal against such order."

18. The petitioner complainant shall have an opportunity during the course of regular enquiry
to lead oral and documentary evidence as is provided for in sub section (11) of Section 6 of the
U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997,
further will also have an opportunity of hearing as contemplated under sub section (16) of Rule 6.
Sub section (11) and sub section (16) of Rule 6 reads as follows:

"(11).On the date fixed for the enquiry, the oral and documentary evidence by which the
articles of charge are proposed shall be produced and the witness shall be examined, by the Enquiry
Officer by or on behalf of the complainant, if there is one, and may be cross-examined by or on
behalf of the person against whom the Enquiry Officer is being held. The witnesses may be reexamined by the Enquiry Officer or the complainant, as the case may be, on any point on which
they have been cross- examined, but no on any new matter, without the leave of the Enquiry
Officer."

(16) The Enquiry Officer may, after the completion of the production of evidence, hear
the complainant, if any and the the person against whom the enquiry is being held, or permit them,
or him, as the case may be, to file written briefs of their respective cases."

19. Thus, it is evident from the scheme of the Act and the Rules framed there under, the
complainant only has a right to participate in the regular enquiry to the extent the rules provide but
would have no locus to seek direction to the respondents to take appropriate action against the
responsible person as per enquiry report.

20. Having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere.
The petition filed at the behest of a complainant being not maintainable is, accordingly, dismissed.

21. No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.07.2015

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR , J.

Writ C No.- 42133 Of 2015

Sriram Prasad & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents