# Chandra Bhushan Pandey v. Sri Narain Singh, Minister For Horticulture Deptt. and others

- **Citation:** (2011) 2 ILRA 903
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-08-30
- **Bench:** Uma Nath Singh, Anil Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandra-bhushan-pandey-v-sri-narain-singh-minister-for-horticulture-deptt-and-42003
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India ,Article 226-Writ
Petition-"person aggrieved" means-who
suffered legal injury or deprived from
having
legal
entitlement-petitioner
alleged office bearer-seeking removal of
the Secretary Horticulture Departmentas not paying heed to the grievance of
employees
association-held-not
aggrieved person-no locus to file the
petition-dismissed.

Held: Para 12

Therefore, in our considered view, the
petitioner is not a person aggrieved in
regard to subject matter involved in the
instant case, hence , he has no locus
standi to file the present Writ Petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
Case law discussed:
2003 (5) SCC 413; AIR 1974 SC 1719; AIR
1977 SC 1361; AIR 1976 SC 578
904 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

## Text

2 All] C.B. Pandey V. Sri Narain Singh, Minister For Horticulture Deptt. and others

903
of view of complainant without at all
adverting to any defence that the accused
may have. In that case, it has been held by
way of illustration that the order of
magistrate issuing process can be quashed
where the allegations made in the
complainant or the statements of the
witnesses recorded in support of the same
taken at their face value made out
absolutely no case against the accused or
the complaint does not disclose the
essential ingredients of an office which is
alleged against accused.

8. In the case of S.W. Palanitkar
and others Vs. State of Bihar and
another 2002 (44) A.C.C., 168 (S.C.) the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that at the
stage of passing order under Section 203
Cr.P.C. searching sufficient ground tp
convict is not necessary.

9. A perusal of the impugned order
indicates that the same has been passed
after considering the evidence available on
record and there is no illegality in the
same.
There
was
evidence
of
the
complainant to the effect that there was
demand of dowry and due to nonfulfillment of the same, the complainant
was being abused, threatened and beaten as
well. This order of the trial court is
perfectly valid and call for no interference
at this stage.

Revision is accordingly dismissed.

10. However, considering the nature
of the offence, it is provided that if the
revisionists surrender before the Trial
Court within three weeks from today and
move an application for bail, their bail
application
shall
be
disposed
of
expeditiously, if possible, the same day.

11. Office is directed to send a copy
of this order to the trial court by registered
post A.D.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.08.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE UMA NATH SINGH,J.
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR,J.

Misc. Bench No. - 7770 of 2011

Chandra Bhushan Pandey
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Sri
Narain
Singh,
Minister
For
Horticulture Deptt. and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Pande
Sri Rohit Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C

Constitution of India ,Article 226-Writ
Petition-"person aggrieved" means-who
suffered legal injury or deprived from
having
legal
entitlement-petitioner
alleged office bearer-seeking removal of
the Secretary Horticulture Departmentas not paying heed to the grievance of
employees
association-held-not
aggrieved person-no locus to file the
petition-dismissed.

Held: Para 12

Therefore, in our considered view, the
petitioner is not a person aggrieved in
regard to subject matter involved in the
instant case, hence , he has no locus
standi to file the present Writ Petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
Case law discussed:
2003 (5) SCC 413; AIR 1974 SC 1719; AIR
1977 SC 1361; AIR 1976 SC 578
904 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

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

1. Heard Sri Ashok Pande, learned
counsel for petitioner and Sri J. N.
Mathur, Additional Advocate General
and Smt. Sangeeta Chandra learned State
counsel appearing on behalf of official
respondents.

2. Sri Chandra Bhushan Pandey, the
president
of
Officers'
Association,
Ministry for Horticulture, Department of
State of Uttar Pradesh has filed present
writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking a direction
to Sri Narain Singh, Minister for
Horticulture
Department,
Civil
Secretariat, Lucknow/ respondent no.1 to
ask/ recommend to respondent no.2 to
withdraw/remove
respondent
no.4
(
Jeevan Lal Verma ) from the post of
Personal Secretary and to appoint a new
person in his place.

3. The above said relief has been
claimed on the alleged facts which in nut
shell are that the petitioner being
President of the Association has raised
grievances of the members of the
association
including
the
problem
created by personal secretary of Sri
Narain Singh, Minister for Horticulture,
as the said person with oblique motive
and
purpose
is
not
listening
the
complaints made by the members of the
association and for the said purpose, he
is
demanding
illegal
gratification.
However, no heed has been paid by
respondent no.1 in spite of several
representations as annexed as Annexure
no.1, to the writ petition.

4. In view of the above said factual
matrix, the core question which has to be
decided in the instant writ petition is, as
to whether the petitioner falls within the
ambit and scope of the definition of
'person aggrieved' in order to enable him
to file present writ petition for redressal
of grievance and to get relief as claimed.

5. 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.

6. 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 satisfies
the Court that he has a legal right to
insist
on
such
performance.
The
existence of the said right is the
condition precedent to invoke the writ
jurisdiction. [Utkal University etc. Vs.
Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi and
others
(AIR
1999
SC
943)
and
Laxminarayan R. Bhattad and others vs.
State of Maharashtra and another (2003)
5 SCC 413].
2 All] C.B. Pandey V. Sri Narain Singh, Minister For Horticulture Deptt. and others

905

7. 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 vs. Home Insurance Co.
of New York (AIR 1974 SC 1719) and
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India and
others (AIR 1977 SC 1361)].

8. In Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v.
Roshan Kumar Hazi Bashir Ahmad and
others [AIR 1976 SC 578], the Apex
Court has held that only a person who is
aggrieved by an order, can maintain a
writ petition. The expression 'aggrieved
person' has been explained by the Apex
Court observing that such a person must
show that he has a more particular or
peculiar interest of his own beyond that
of the general public in seeing that the
law is properly administered. In the said
case, a cinema hall owner had challenged
the sanction of setting up of a rival
cinema hall in the town contending that it
would adversely affect monopolistic
commercial interest, causing pecuniary
harm
and
loss
of
business
from
competition. The Hon'ble Apex Court
observed as under,

"Such harm or loss is not wrongful
in the eye of law because it does not
result in injury to a legal right or a
legally protected interest, the business
competition causing it being a lawful
activity.
Judicially,
harm
of
this
description is called daminum sine
injuria. The term injuria being here used
in its true sense reason why law suffers a
person knowingly to inflict harm of this
description on another, without holding
him accountable for it, is that such harm
done to an individual is a gain to society
at large. In the light of the above
discussion, it is demonstratively clear
that the appellant has not been denied or
deprived of a legal right. He has not
sustained injury to any legally protected
interest. In fact, the impugned order does
not operate as a decision against him,
much less does it wrongfully effect his
title to something. He has not been
subjected to legal wrong. He has suffered
no grievance. He has no legal peg for a
justiciable claim to hand on. Therefore,
he is not a "person aggrieved" to
challenge the ground of the no objection
certificate. ( see Babua Ram and others
Vs. State of U.P. and another (1995) 2
SCC 689 and Northern Plastics Ltd. Vs.
Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd.
and others (1997) 4SCC 452) and a
decision given by a Coordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of Dharam Raj Vs.
State of U.P. and others, 2009 (27) LCD
1373"

9. Thus, the person aggrieved is,
therefore, in this context, would mean a
person who had suffered legal injury or
one who has been unjustly deprived or
denied of something.

10. In Collin's English Dictionary,
the word "aggrieved" has been defined to
mean "to ensure unjustly especially by
infringing a person's legal rights". In
Webster
Comprehensive
Dictionary,
International
Edition
at
page
28,
'aggrieved person' is defined to mean
"subjected to ill-treatment, feeling an
injury or injustice. Injured, as by legal
decision adversely infringing upon one's
rights". In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary,
Fifth Ed., Vol. 1, pages 83-84, person
aggrieved means "person injured or
damaged in a legal sense".

11. In Black's Law Dictionary,
Sixth Ed. at page 65, aggrieved has been
906 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

defined to mean "having suffered loss or
injury; damnified; injured", aggrieved
person has been defined to mean:

"One whose legal right is invaded
by an act complained of, or whose
pecuniary
interest
is
directly
and
adversely affected by a decree or
judgment. One whose right of property
may be established or divested. The word
"aggrieved" refers to a substantial
grievance, a denial of some personal,
pecuniary or property right, or the
imposition upon a party of a burden or
obligation."

12. Therefore, in our considered
view, the petitioner is not a person
aggrieved in regard to subject matter
involved in the instant case, hence , he
has no locus standi to file the present
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.

13. Further, Sri J.N. Mathur,
learned Additional Advocate General of
U.P. has very fairly submitted that he
will look into the matter and bring it to
the notice of respondents no. 1 and 2 to
take appropriate action , if the same is
correct. We hope and trust on the
submission made by Sri Mathur, who
will use his office to do the needful.

14. For the foregoing reasons, writ
petition
is
dismissed
with
above
observations.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.08.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8658 of 2006

Kamal Kumar Srivastava
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Board of Revenue U.P. and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Gajendra Pratap

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Hari Shanker Mishra
Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava
Sri J.P. Tiwari
Sri P.S. Baghel
Sri Rajendra Prasad Tiwari
Sri Uma Kant
Sri V.B. Upadhya
Sri V.S. Giri
Sri Vipin Sinha
Sri Dharm Pal Singh
C.S.C

U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act , 1950 read with
U.P.Z.A & L.R. Rules 1952-Rule 281-286Auction
Sale
of
agricultural
landrecovery of amount of loan advance by
U.P. Finance Corporation-if such amount
can not be recovered as arrears of land
and revenue-subsequent entire follow up
action without jurisdiction-view taken by
Board of Revenue-held-justified-Petition
dismissed.

Held: Para 38

The functions being quasi-judicial, the
Commissioner
continues
to
have
a
judicious
duty
to
perform
with
a
conscience to guide him to apply his
mind. He cannot turn a blind eye or a
deaf ear to the decision in Unique Butyl's
case by any contrivance of ignorance or