# Devendra Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 544
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-29
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 6330 of 2022
- **Bench:** Attau Rahman Masoodi, Om Prakash Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/devendra-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49084
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India, 1950 - Article
226- Maintainability of -aggrieved partycancellation of lease of building in favour
of Samajwadi Party-No pleadings in writ
petition regarding filing of petition on
behalf of Samajwadi Party-Rather petition
sought to be filed by petitioner in his
individual capacity although lease deed
stands in name of Samajwadi Party-Since
petitioner
not
an
aggrieved
party,
therefore, he has no locus to file present
petition-Petition held not maintainable.
(Para 2 to 14)

The petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

544 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
courses and as such this Court is also very
well within its jurisdiction to modify the
schedule in the admissions to P.G. courses.

32. However, this court being of the
considered view that the cut-off dates are
sacrosanct and the violation thereof cannot be
compromised, therefore, negative parity of
any sort does not pursuade us to direct
modification of the schedule in PG courses as
it may adversely affect the PG admissions
calendar and it is open for the authorities to
take
corrective
steps
as
regards
any
concession that may have been granted
contrary to law. The judgment cited by the
learned Counsel of the petitioners has been
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
exercise of its plenary power under Article
142 of the constitution of India. Although, the
petitioners
claiming
parity
have
been
successful in demonstrating before this court
that they are entitled to be treated equally
with candidates, who have been granted NOC
by the state Government on 09.09.2022 &
14.09.2022 and have since then joined the PG
course as late as in the second week of
September, 2022, however the hands of this
court are tied and we would not depart from
the settled view of academic schedule in
order to add further anamolies.

33. It is tragic that the super-specialty
seats in medical courses are being wasted due
to the lack of empathy of the state machinery,
especially when there is a dearth of trained
specialist doctors in our country. While our
sympathies are with the petitioners and other
similarly placed, we are unable to grant any
relief to them or approve of the distinction
pointed out; unfortunately, sympathies cannot
supplant the law.

34. We do, however, find that the
petitioners
were
wronged
and
were
unnecessarily compelled to approach this
court.
Since,
there
is
no
claim
for
compensation by the petitioners as they have
sought for allotment of medical colleges to
them, this court in the peculiar facts &
circumstances grants liberty to the petitioners
to pursue for compensation/damages against
the
erring
respondents
in
a
separate
proceeding.

35. The writ petition is accordingly
dismissed, with the liberty as aforesaid. In the
peculiar facts of the case, the respondent state
is additionally burdened with a cost of Rs.
25,000/- to be paid to each petitioner towards
the litigation cost of the present writ petition.

36. Let a copy of this judgment be
forwarded to the Director General, Medical
Education and Training, U.P, for necessary
compliance forthwith. Any apportionment of
the financial liability between the two
directorates shall be an internal matter of the
State but the actual payment of cost to each
petitioner shall be made by the Director
General, Medical Education & Training, U.P.,
within a month from today.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 544
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Writ-C No. 6330 of 2022

Devendra Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mohd. Mansoor, Devendra Upadhyay

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Rajendra Singh Chauhan
9 All. Devendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
545
A. Constitution of India, 1950 - Article
226- Maintainability of -aggrieved partycancellation of lease of building in favour
of Samajwadi Party-No pleadings in writ
petition regarding filing of petition on
behalf of Samajwadi Party-Rather petition
sought to be filed by petitioner in his
individual capacity although lease deed
stands in name of Samajwadi Party-Since
petitioner
not
an
aggrieved
party,
therefore, he has no locus to file present
petition-Petition held not maintainable.
(Para 2 to 14)

The petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs Roshan Kumar,
Hazi Bashir Ahmad & ors. (1976) AIR SC 578

2. M/s Northern Plastic Ltd. Vs Hindustan Photo
film Mfg. Co. Ltd & ors. (1997) 4 SCC 452

(Delivered by Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri Rajendra Singh Chauhan,
learned counsel for respondent no.4 and
learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. An interesting question arises in the
present writ petition, wherein the petitioner
claiming himself to be a member and
former district president of Samajwadi
Party, Mainpuri has sought to interdict an
order dated 08.09.2022 passed by the
Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj,
State of U.P. The reason for such challenge
is cancellation of a 90 years lease of a
building,
leased
to
Zila
Panchayat,
Mainpuri
situated
at
Devi Road
to
Samajwadi Party on 10.06.2004 for office
purposes.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that
the impugned order dated 08.09.2022 has
the effect of canceling a lease of 90 years
by the State Government without any
notice or opportunity of hearing to
Samajwadi Party or any of its office
bearers, although it has been alleged that
the district president of Samajwadi Party,
District Mainpuri was informed about the
said cancellation vide a letter dated
09.09.2022 by the Apar Mukhya Adhikari,
Zila Panchayat, Mainpuri. The petitioner
also claims that there had been no violation
of the terms of the lease and as such there
was no occasion for the respondents to
cancel the lease.

4. At the preliminary stage, when the
case was called for hearing on 13.09.2022,
this Court expressed its doubt on the locus
of the petitioner in pursuing the present
writ petition, wherein the petitioner sought
some time and as such this Court permitted
the
petitioner
to
file
supplementary
affidavit to explain valid authorization so
as to maintain the present writ petition.

5.

The
petitioner
vide
a
supplementary affidavit dated 15.09.2021
filed an authorization in his name,
repeating yet again, that he has been duly
authorized by the national secretary of
Samajwadi Party, and in support of the said
contention,
he
has
filed
an
office
memorandum dated 14.09.2022 on the
letter-head of Samajwadi Party issued by
the national secretary of Samajwadi Party.
It is noted that the petitioner while filing
the present writ petition had filed an
authorization dated 11.09.2022, which was
also signed by the same national secretary.
There is neither any affidavit from the
national secretary nor any documents filed
on record, which could satisfy this Court
relating to a valid authorization. The
authorization dated 14.09.2022 merely
mentions about the earlier authorization
dated 11.09.2022 and nothing more.
546 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. Having heard counsel for both the
parties, this Court has given its anxious
thought to the present petition. However,
since a challenge to the maintainability qua
the locus of the petitioner to file present
writ petition has been raised at the very
preliminary stage, this Court finds it's
bounded duty to first deal with the locus of
the petitioner in preferring the present
petition.

7. Admittedly, the impugned order is
directed towards the cancellation of lease
deed executed in favour of Samajwadi
Party, which is a registered political party
under Section 29A of the Representatives
of Peoples Act, 1951. So it is Samajwadi
Party as a "person", who ought to have
been an aggrieved person. It is also an
admitted position that Samajwadi Party is
not the petitioner nor is a party before this
Court. The present petition has not been
filed by Samajwadi Party through its office
bearers. The petition has sought to be filed
by the petitioner claiming himself to be an
aggrieved party, although the records
reveal that it must be Samajwadi Party who
should have been an aggrieved party. In
any case, this Court cannot be oblivious of
the fact that pursuant to the impugned
order, the peaceful possession of two rooms
of previous old district office of Samajwadi
Party situated at Devi Road has been
handed over by the Samajwadi Party to the
Zila Panchayt, Mainpuri in presence of the
magistrate
appointed
by
the
district
administrator. Apparently, it does not seem
to this Court that Samajwadi Party could be
an aggrieved person as has been rightly
submitted by the learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel. This Court does not
wish to dwell into the realm of contentious
reasons argued by the learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel that Samajwadi
Party had not been using the said premises
for the purpose which was leased to them
and which has enabled them to cancel the
said lease; or that Samajwadi Party had
already constructed new building for its
district office at Mainpuri and has already
shifted and as such the old place of district
office was no longer in use by them; or that
there was no reason for filing the present
writ petition as Samajwadi Party has
peacefully handed over the leased premises
to the Zila Panchayat Mainpuri.

8. The concept of ''locus standi' is not
alien to litigation as the basic concept under
both the inquisitorial and adversarial
system of litigation is that the person, who
approaches the court of law must first plead
as to how the said person is aggrieved or
deprived of his or her legal rights. Thus, the
concept of locus standi has been imported
into the writ jurisdiction.

9. 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/she is adversely affected in a legal
sense. It is a 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 of India is maintainable for
enforcing a fundamental or legal right or
when there is a complaint by the petitioner
that there is a breach of a statutory duty on
part of the authorities, therefore, there must
be a justiciable right for the enforcement of
which the writ jurisdiction can be resorted
to. This 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
9 All. Devendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
547
Court that he has a legal right to insist on
such performance. The existence of a said
right is the condition precedent to invoke
the writ jurisdiction. In "Jasbhai Motibhai
Desai Vs. 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. Judically, harm of this description
is called "demnum 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 affect his title to something. He
has not been subjected to a legal wrong. He
has suffered no legal grievance. He 'has no
legal peg for' a justiciable claim to hang
on. Therefore he is not a 'person aggrieved'
and has no locus standi to challenge the
grant of the No-objection Certificate....."
(Emphasis added)

10. In "M/s Northern Plastic Limited
Vs. Hindustan Photofilm manufacturing
Company Limited and Others; [1997 (4)
SCC 452]," the Hon'ble Supreme Court
again considered the meaning of "person
aggrieved" and again "locus of a rival
government undertaking" and held that a
rival business man cannot maintain a writ
petition on the ground that its business
prospect would be adversely affected.

11. Now, therefore, the question
arises as to whether the petitioner has a
right to file a present writ petition? The
petitioner claims to be a member and
erstwhile district president of Samajwadi
Party. There is no document on record to
show his membership or that he was a
former district president of Samajwadi
Party. The only document relied upon by
the petitioner is that the authorization dated
11.09.2022
and
14.09.2022,
which
according to the petitioner serves both the
purposes of locus as well as the authority to
file the present writ petition. According to
this Court both the issues of locus and
authorization are independent, however, in
some cases they may overlap. In the
present case, the petitioner has apparently
failed
to
show
and/or
explain
his
membership as well as the authorization
from Samajwadi Party. There is no
pleading nor any document or any affidavit
has been filed on record to show as to how
and in what circumstances, the national
secretary
of
Samajwadi
Party
has
authorized or could authorize the petitioner
548 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to file the present petition for and on behalf
of
the
Samajwadi
Party.
Thus,
the
petitioner has no right to maintain the
present writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India for and on behalf
of
the
Samajwadi
Party.
Even
the
judgments quoted by the petitioner in his
written submission do not come to his
rescue.

12. This Court is also conscious of the
law that "ordinarily" a person who seeks to
file a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India should be one who has a
personal or individual right in the subject
matter of the petition and a personal right
need not be in respect of proprietary interest,
as it can also relate to an interest of a trustee.
It is thing to say that a person has an
individual right to maintain a petition and its
other thing to say that the petition has been
filed for and on behalf of some other
aggrieved persons. The present case is not a
case filed by the petitioner in his individual
capacity, but it has been filed for and on
behalf of Samajwadi Party. This Court is of
the view that there is no valid authorization in
favour of the petitioner to prosecute this case
for and on behalf of Samajwadi Party. There
is no pleadings in the writ petition that the
petition has been filed for and on behalf of
Samajwadi Party, rather the petition is sought
to be filed by the petitioner in his individual
capacity, since lease deed stands in the name
of Samajwadi Party. This Court finds rather
absurd as to how the petitioner can be an
aggrieved party or as to how his individual
right has been adversely affected. Thus, the
present writ petition fails. The petitioner
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
at the instance of petitioner is, therefore, not
maintainable.

13. Since, the petition is held to be
not maintainable on behalf of the petitioner,
this Court does not wish to express any
opinion on the merits or otherwise of the
present writ petition, least it would
prejudice to the rights and contention of the
parties.

14. Leaving all questions of fact and
law open, the present writ petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 548
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ-C No. 25442 of 2020

Km. Shivani Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Surya Prakash Singh, Anupama Bhadauria,
Nitish Shekhar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava, Kshitij
Mishra

A. Civil Law - Petitioner appeared in NEET
exam and secured for the course of MBBSpetitioner deposited a total sum of Rs.
13,30,000/-
and
allotted
collegesubsequently the petitioner was allotted a
seat in Madhya Pradesh, which the
petitioner found to be better option, as
such she applied for refund of fees and
security
money
deposited
by
the
petitioner-the same has been refused
stating that Clause 8 of the Government
Order dated 12.06.2018 there is a bar
from withdrawal or resignation, after the
start of second round of counseling also
Clause 9 and 10 provides for confiscating
the security money and fees-It is settled
provision
of law that the executive
instructions cannot partake 'law' under