# Jang Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 757
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-12-17
- **Case number:** Misc. Bench No. 29669 of 2021
- **Bench:** Rakesh Srivastava, Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jang-bahadur-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46696
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution, 1950: Article 226 - The Court held
that since petitioner is a complainant and no legal
right have been infringed therefore, he has no right to
invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution. (Para 8)

Writ Petition Rejected. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

11 All. Jang Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
757

21. In the present case where the respondents
were in settled possession since the life time of the
recorded tenure holder and by virtue of her will
they continued with their possession over the land,
having been duly mutated after the death of
recorded tenure holder as testamentary successors.
Thus use and enjoyment of the property possessed
by them could not be disturbed in exercise of
power under Section 145/146 of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 by the S.D.M.

22. On the discussions made hereinabove,
the judgment delivered by learned Sessions Judge
in Criminal Revision No.54/2020, (Brijendra
Singh Vs. Virendra Singh) does not suffer with
error of law and the petition under Article 227 is
devoid of legal grounds attracting interference of
the Court in the revisional judgment, therefore, the
petition deserves to be dismissed.

23. With the aforesaid observations, the writ
petition is dismissed.
----------
(2021)12ILR A757
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAKESH SRIVASTAVA, J.
THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Misc. Bench No. 29669 of 2021

Jang Bahadur Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Nirmal Singh Yadav, Adarsh Srivastava, Divya Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Anurag Kumar Singh

A. Practice & Procedure - Locus Standi - Indian
Constitution, 1950: Article 226 - The Court held
that since petitioner is a complainant and no legal
right have been infringed therefore, he has no right to
invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution. (Para 8)

Writ Petition Rejected. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

1. Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs Roshan Kumar, Haji
Bashir Ahmed (1976) 1 SCC 671

2. Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs St. of Mah.
(2013) 4 SCC 465

3. Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs Collector (2012) 4 SCC 407
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava, J.
&
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Sri Nirmal Singh Yadav, learned
counsel for the petitioner.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying
inter alia the following relief:-

i) issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding the opposite
parties to consider the representation of the
petitioner and lodge the criminal case against the
opposite party no. 5-Pradhan after investigate
the matter and seize the powers of the opposite
party no. 5 on the basis of submitting false and
forged paper and concealment of fact by him in
election process.

3. Kishan Pal, respondent no. 5 herein, is
the Pradhan of Village Bachgawan, P.O.
Bankagaon, Block and P.S. Pasgaon, Tehsil
Mohamdi, District Lakhimpur Kheri. The
petitioner, it is alleged, is simple, gentle and law
abiding person and voter of the said Gram
Panchayat. On 20.10.2021 the petitioner lodged
a
complaint
before
the
State
Election
Commission, UP, Lucknow to the effect that the
respondent no. 5 is not the resident of the village
and as such his election to the post of Gram
758 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Pradhan was illegal. It was prayed that action be
taken against him.

4. The question is as to whether the
petitioner
has
the
locus
to
invoke
the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this
case.

5. It is well settled that in order to have the
locus standi to invoke certiorari jurisdiction, the
petitioner should be an "aggrieved person". If
the petitioner does not fall in this category, and
is a "stranger", the Court will deny him this
extraordinary remedy, save in very special
circumstances wherein it may exercise its
discretion in favour of the petitioner.

6. In Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan
Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed, (1976) 1 SCC 671,
the Apex Court considered the question as to
who can be considered as a "person aggrieved"
in order to have the locus to invoke certiorari
jurisdiction of a writ court and held as under:

"37. It will be seen that in the context
of locus standi to apply for a writ of certiorari,
an applicant may ordinarily fall in any of these
categories:
(i)
"person
aggrieved";
(ii)
"stranger"; (iii) busybody or meddlesome
interloper. Persons in the last category are
easily distinguishable from those coming under
the first two categories. Such persons interfere
in things which do not concern them. They
masquerade as crusaders for justice. They
pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico,
though they have no interest of the public or
even of their own to protect. They indulge in the
pastime of meddling with the judicial process
either by force of habit or from improper
motives. Often, they are actuated by a desire to
win notoriety or cheap popularity; while the
ulterior intent of some applicants in this
category, may be no more than spoking the
wheels of administration. The High Court
should do well to reject the applications of such
busybodies at the threshold.

38. The distinction between the first
and second categories of applicants, though
real, is not always well-demarcated. The first
category has, as it were, two concentric zones; a
solid central zone of certainty, and a grey outer
circle of lessening certainty in a sliding
centrifugal scale, with an outermost nebulous
fringe of uncertainty. Applicants falling within
the central zone are those whose legal rights
have
been
infringed.
Such
applicants
undoubtedly stand in the category of "persons
aggrieved". In the grey outer circle the bounds
which separate the first category from the
second,
intermix,
interfuse
and
overlap
increasingly in a centrifugal direction. All
persons in this outer zone may not be "persons
aggrieved".

39. To distinguish such applicants
from "strangers", among them, some broad tests
may be deduced from the conspectus made
above. These tests are not absolute and ultimate.
Their
efficacy
varies
according
to
the
circumstances of the case, including the
statutory context in which the matter falls to be
considered. These are: Whether the applicant is
a person whose legal right has been infringed?
Has he suffered a legal wrong or injury, in the
sense, that his interest, recognised by law, has
been prejudicially and directly affected by the
act or omission of the authority, complained of?
Is he a person who has suffered a legal
grievance, a person

"against whom a decision has been
pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him
of something or wrongfully refused him
something, or wrongfully affected his title to
something?"

Has he a special and substantial
grievance of his own beyond some grievance or
11 All. Jang Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
759
inconvenience suffered by him in common with
the rest of the public? Was he entitled to object
and be heard by the authority before it took the
impugned action? If so, was he prejudicially
affected in the exercise of that right by the act of
usurpation of jurisdiction on the part of the
authority? Is the statute, in the context of which
the scope of the words "person aggrieved" is
being considered, a social welfare measure
designed to lay down ethical or professional
standards of conduct for the community? Or is it
a statute dealing with private rights of
particular individuals?

* * *

49. It is true that in the ultimate
analysis, the jurisdiction under Article 226 in
general,
and
certiorari
in
particular
is
discretionary. But in a country like India where
writ petitions are instituted in the High Courts
by the thousand, many of them frivolous, a strict
ascertainment, at the outset, of the standing of
the petitioner to invoke this extraordinary
jurisdiction, must be insisted upon. The broad
guidelines indicated by us, coupled with other
well-established self-devised rules of practice,
such as the availability of an alternative remedy,
the conduct of the petitioner etc. can go a long
way to help the courts in weeding out a large
number of writ petitions at the initial stage with
consequent saving of public time and money."
 (emphasis supplied)

7. In paragraph 5 of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has stated his cause of
action as follows:

"5. That the petitioner is running pillar
to post for his grievance which are also in the
large interest of Gram Panchayat as the public
fund is utilizing by the wrong person who is not
residing
in
the
village
Gram
Panchayat
Bachgawan, Pasgaon Kheri and he is residing at
Maholi-Mathura District since last 20-25 years
even then the opposite parties are not
considering the complaints of the petitioner
which is wrong, arbitrary and illegal."

8. As is evident from the facts narrated
above, no legal right of the petitioner has been
infringed. He is at the most a complainant.

9. In Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. Collector,
(2012) 4 SCC 407, the Apex Court has held that
a complainant cannot claim the status of an
adversarial litigant and become a party to the lis
in the following words:

"58.
Shri
Chintaman
Raghunath
Gharat, ex-President was the complainant, thus,
at the most, he could lead evidence as a witness.
He could not claim the status of an adversarial
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 eye of the 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
voluntas reasons i.e. a claim devoid of reasons.

60. Under the garb of being a
necessary party, a person cannot be permitted to
760 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 who 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."
 (emphasis supplied)

10. In Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v.
State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 465, the
Apex Court has enumerated some of the
exceptional circumstances wherein a third
person, having no concern with the case, can be
heard. Paragraph 23 of the said report being
relevant is extracted below:

"23. Thus, from the above it is evident
that under ordinary circumstances, a third
person, having no concern with the case at hand,
cannot claim to have any locus standi to raise
any
grievance
whatsoever.
However,
in
exceptional circumstances as referred to above,
if the actual persons aggrieved, because of
ignorance, illiteracy, inarticulation or poverty,
are unable to approach the court, and a person,
who has no personal agenda, or object, in
relation to which, he can grind his own axe,
approaches the court, then the court may
examine
the
issue
and
in
exceptional
circumstances, even if his bona fides are
doubted, but the issue raised by him, in the
opinion of the court, requires consideration, the
court may proceed suo motu, in such respect."
 (emphasis supplied)

11. The petitioner is admittedly espousing
the cause of Gaon Sabha. By no stretch of
imagination, can it be said that the Gaon Sabha
is unable to approach this Court because of the
exceptional circumstances mentioned in the case
of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (supra).

12. For the foregoing reasons, the
petitioner
has
no
locus
to
invoke
the
extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution.
Accordingly, without entering into the merits of
the case, this writ petition is dismissed. No order
as to cost.
----------
(2021)12ILR A760
ORIGINAl JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NAHEED ARA MOONIS, J.
THE HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.

Writ Tax No. 511 of 2017

M/s Ansaldo STS Transport System India Pvt.
Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nishant Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Manu Ghildayal, Sri C.B. Tripathi

A. Interpretation of Statute - Limitation - U.P.
V.A.T. Act, 2008: Section 29(6), 32 - If second
or any subsequent ex-parte assessment order
was set aside (under section 32 of the Act), on
or before 30th September of an Assessment
Year, the limitation to pass a fresh assessment
order thereafter, would exist up to 31st March
of that Assessment Year. However, if the order
to set aside the second or the subsequent exparte assessment order was passed on or after
1st October of an Assessment Year, the
limitation to pass fresh assessment order
would stand extended upto 30th September of
the next Assessment Year. (Para 37)

The limitation to pass the fresh/second assessment
order/s existed up to the end of the Assessment Year
in which such (first) ex-parte assessment order was
set aside. Since the first ex-parte assessment order