# Kuldeep Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2021) 1 ILRA 461 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2020-11-19 - **Case number:** Writ C No. 18632 of 2020 - **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kuldeep-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46029 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote (A) Civil Law - Only an aggrieved person can maintain a writ petition - must be material to show that the petitioner has suffered some injury or has been denied or deprived of a legal right - In the absence of the aforesaid, he cannot be said to be a "person aggrieved" so as to maintain the writ petition - in the absence of any injury to his legal right or legally protected interest, a complainant cannot claim status of a party to an adversarial litigation. (Para-6,7) Petitioner filed complaint against the respondent - complaint was with regard to certain work carried out by the village panchayat - enquiry officer held that the entire work carried out by the village Pradhan was satisfactory - copy of the enquiry report forwarded to the petitioner - impugned orders passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer - finding recorded in impugned orders - entire work was found to have been completed satisfactorily. (Para - 2,3) HELD:- No good reason to interfere with the finding of the facts recorded by the respondent no.4 in the impugned orders. Another aspect that requires to be taken note of is that the petitioner is a complainant not a "person aggrieved" so as to maintain the writ petition.(Para - 4,5,6) Writ Petition dismissed. (E-6) List of Cases cited :- Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs District Collector, Raigad & ors. , (2012) 4 SCC 407 ## Text 1 All. Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 461 Akhileshwar Singh, the learned standing counsel for the State submit that it would be in the fitness of things and in the ends of justice that this petition is disposed of with the direction to the Competent Authority under the Act to take a decision on the grievance of the petitioner, after hearing the parties concerned, in accordance with law. 7. We appreciate the fair stand taken by all concerned. However, as indicated above, there is an element of huge public interest involved in respect of each and every home-buyer whose legitimate grievance is to be addressed within the parameters of agreement and law. 8. We deem appropriate to issue a general mandamus to the Competent Authorities to dispose of the grievance of the home-buyers within a stipulated period so as to obviate an individual home-buyer or a registered association, as the case may be, from approaching this Court time and again. The benefit of this order shall also be extended to the competent authority envisaged under U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 and other cognate enactments. 9. The writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (i) A general mandamus is issued to the Competent Authorities under U.P. Apartment Act, 2010 & U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 or any other cognate enactment to decide the grievance of the home-buyers or their associations, positively within 3 months from the date the grievance is brought to their knowledge, by reasoned and speaking order under intimation to the aggrieved persons. (ii) The Competent Authority shall ensure that before any decision is taken, a right of audience is given to the parties concerned. (iii) The Competent Authority shall ensure that an officer not below the rank of a Gazetted Officer shall periodically visit the apartment / building at least once in 6 months at a prior notice to the registered association which shall be obliged to circulate it amongst its member so as to give them an opportunity to ventilate their grievance, if any. Any reported violation shall be immediately brought to the notice of the Authority concerned which shall immediately take remedial steps. (iv) Any inaction on the part of Competent Authority shall be construed as serious dereliction of duty, warranting interference from the State Government. 10. The Registrar General is directed to communicate this order to the Principal Secretary (Urban Development), U.P. Government, Lucknow, with a further direction to circulate the same to all the Competent Authorities concerned for due compliance, forthwith. ---------- (2021)01ILR A461 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.11.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J. THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Writ C No. 18632 of 2020 Kuldeep Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: 462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Sri Anand Kumar Singh Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. (A) Civil Law - Only an aggrieved person can maintain a writ petition - must be material to show that the petitioner has suffered some injury or has been denied or deprived of a legal right - In the absence of the aforesaid, he cannot be said to be a "person aggrieved" so as to maintain the writ petition - in the absence of any injury to his legal right or legally protected interest, a complainant cannot claim status of a party to an adversarial litigation. (Para-6,7) Petitioner filed complaint against the respondent - complaint was with regard to certain work carried out by the village panchayat - enquiry officer held that the entire work carried out by the village Pradhan was satisfactory - copy of the enquiry report forwarded to the petitioner - impugned orders passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer - finding recorded in impugned orders - entire work was found to have been completed satisfactorily. (Para - 2,3) HELD:- No good reason to interfere with the finding of the facts recorded by the respondent no.4 in the impugned orders. Another aspect that requires to be taken note of is that the petitioner is a complainant not a "person aggrieved" so as to maintain the writ petition.(Para - 4,5,6) Writ Petition dismissed. (E-6) List of Cases cited :- Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs District Collector, Raigad & ors. , (2012) 4 SCC 407 (Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. & Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent nos.5 and 6, who were Secretary and Gram Pradhan of Village Panchayat Karamchandpur, Block Kamalganj, District Farrukhabad. The complaint was with regard to certain work carried out by the village panchayat. An enquiry was made by the competent officer and the complaint was found to be without substance. The enquiry officer held that the entire work carried out by the village Pradhan was satisfactory. The copy of the enquiry report dated 19.11.2019 was also forwarded to the petitioner as appears from the subsequent order dated 13.03.2020. In the background of the aforesaid fact the impugned orders dated 13.03.2020 and 27.06.2020 have been passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Farrukhabad. 3. In both the aforesaid impugned orders a finding has been recorded that in the enquiry the entire work was found to have been completed satisfactorily. 4. We do not find any good reason to interfere with the finding of the facts recorded by the respondent no.4 in the impugned orders. 5. Another aspect that requires to be taken note of is that the petitioner is a complainant. 6. It has been consistently held that only an aggrieved person can maintain a writ petition. In order to show that the petitioner is an aggrieved person, it must be demonstrated that he has a particular interest of his own beyond that of the 1 All. Manoj Kumar Tiwari Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. 463 general public with regard to the subject matter of the writ petition. There must be material to show that the petitioner has suffered some injury or has been denied or deprived of a legal right. In the absence of the aforesaid, he cannot be said to be a "person aggrieved" so as to maintain the writ petition. 7. In this regard we may refer to the decision in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v District Collector, Raigad and others (2012) 4 SCC 407 wherein it was held that in the absence of any injury to his legal right or legally protected interest, a complainant cannot claim status of a party to an adversarial litigation. 8. For the aforestated reasons we are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. ---------- (2021)01ILR A463 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.12.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J. Writ C No. 19615 of 2020 Manoj Kumar Tiwari ...Petitioner Versus U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Dhirendra Singh, Sri Ajay Pratap Rao Counsel for the Respondents: A.S.G.I., Sri Dhananjay Awasthi (A) Civil Law - Issuance of writ - A challenge to an evaluation undertaken by examining bodies, in any case, on a mere allegation that "possibility of errors in calculation of marks cannot be ruled out..." cannot be countenanced - must stand on sounder footing. (Para -5) Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ commanding the respondents to undertake a revaluation of his answer script submitted in respect of the subject- "Community and Elementary Education" - Petitioner participated in an entrance examination for granting admission to its D.EL.E.D. course - unsuccessful in obtaining admission - petitioned Court for reevaluation of the answer script in question - prior to approaching Court petitioner has not obtained a copy of answer script from the respondents - procedure that could have been adopted . (Para -2,3) HELD:- An evaluation undertaken by examining bodies should not be viewed with suspicion unless it is prima facie established that it was not fair or transparent. Courts must necessarily be wary of entertaining such challenges unless it be well substantiated and found to rest on a strong pedestal which is likely to succeed.. There must be a demonstrable illegality in the evaluation undertaken and only in such rare and exceptional cases would the Court be legally justified in invoking its jurisdiction. The petitioner here has miserably failed to meet the tests as evolved.(Para - 5,8) Writ Petition dismissed. (E-6) List of Cases cited :- 1. C.B.S.E. Vs Aditya Bandhopadhya & ors. , (2011) 8 SCC 497 2. Ran Vijay Singh Vs St. of U.P. , (2018) 2 SCC 357 3. High Court of Tripura Vs Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee , (2019) 16 SCC 663 (Delivered by Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J.)