# Tribhuwan Verma v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 962
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-12-10
- **Case number:** Misc. Bench No. 28898 of 2021
- **Bench:** Rakesh Srivastava, Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/tribhuwan-verma-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47470
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

C.S.C., Jaibind Singh Rathour, Tanay Hazari

A.
Practice
&
Procedure
-
Indian
Constitution, 1950 - Article 226 - In the
present case, the petitioner being a complainant
fails to establish any legal right or able to show
any breach of statutory duty on the part of
authorities. Thus he has no locus to prefer the
present writ. (Para 9 & 12)
Writ Petition Rejected. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

962 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
I.O. Shatrughna Upadhyay (P.W. -8), we
direct the Director General of Police, U.P.,
to initiate disciplinary proceedings against
the aforenoted officials, if in service. It is
clarified that in the event the officers have
retired
on
attaining
the
age
of
superannuation, the embargo of limitation,
if any under the rules would not operate
and be an impediment. The departmental
enquiry shall be conducted in furtherance
of
the
order
of
this
Court
for
deducting/stoppage of pension.

24. In such peculiar facts and
circumstances, as discussed above, we are
unable to persuade ourselves in taking a
different opinion than that of the trial court.

25. The prayer for leave to appeal is
consequently, refused. The application
seeking leave to appeal is rejected.

26. The appeal, in consequence,
stands dismissed, however with the above
directions.

27. The Registrar General to ensure
compliance of the order.
----------
(2022)01ILR A962
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.12.2021

BEFORE

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

Misc. Bench No. 28898 of 2021

Tribhuwan Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Bhup Chandra Singh, Shiwa Sagar Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Jaibind Singh Rathour, Tanay Hazari

A.
Practice
&
Procedure
-
Indian
Constitution, 1950 - Article 226 - In the
present case, the petitioner being a complainant
fails to establish any legal right or able to show
any breach of statutory duty on the part of
authorities. Thus he has no locus to prefer the
present writ. (Para 9 & 12)
Writ Petition Rejected. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs Collector (2012) 4
SCC 407 (followed)

2. Dharam Raj Vs St. of U.P. 7 ors (2010) 2 AWC
1878 (All) (followed)

3. Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs St. of Mah.
& ors. AIR 2013 SC 58
(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Shri Bhup Chandra Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri
Tanay
Hazari,
learned
counsel
for
respondent no. 2 and learned Standing
counsel for State-respondent no.1.

2. In view of the order proposed to be
passed, notice to respondent no.3 is
dispensed with.

3. This writ petition has been filed
praying inter alia the following reliefs:-

(i) Issue a writ , order or direction in
the nature of certiorari thereby set aside the
letter
no.
8582-89/2021-22
dated
08.09.2021 passed by opposite party
no.2/District
Basic
Education
Officer,
Sultanpur because the opposite party no. 2
without investigating the matter seriously
and also ignoring the material facts and
documents available on record which was
provided before him by the petitioner
1 All. Tribhuwan Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
963
regarding the selection of opposite party
no.3 on the post of Assistant Teacher
fraudulently at Primary School Nonara,
Block-Kadipur, Sultanpur on the basis of
forged and fabricated documents likewise
date of birth mentioned as 10.04.1983 in
the High School Marksheet which was
regularly passed out and another Marksheet
of High School bearing date of birth is
20.03.1984 in the interest of justice.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus thereby directing
the concerned authority to terminate the
service of the private opposite party no. 3
presently working as Assistant Teacher at
Primary School Nonara, Block-Kadipur,
Sultanpur on the basis of forged and
fabricated documents in the interest of
justice.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that respondent no.3 namely
Pradeep Kumar took admission in class 1st
at Primary School Daulatpur, Jaisinghpur,
Sultanpur and studied upto 5th class. His
date of birth has been mentioned as
10.04.1983 in the school records. He
studied from 6th to 10th class at Subhash
Inter College, Paliya, Sultanpur and passed
High School examination in the year 1999
and in T.C. of High School, his date of birth
is mentioned as 10.4.1983.

5. It was further argued by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that respondent
no.3 studied from class 6th to 8th at Munna
Misr Laghu Madhymic School, Misrauli,
Jaisinghpur, Sultanpur and passed 8th class
in the year 1997, but with fraudulent
intention in order to reduce his age, he has
mentioned his date of birth as 20.3.1984 in
the school's documents. Thereafter he has
passed 9th and 10th class as private
candidate in the year 2000 from Janta Inter
College, Belhari, Sultanpur on the
aforesaid date of birth and thereafter
regularly passed 11th and 12th class in the
year 2001-2002 from the aforesaid school
on the same date of birth i.e. 20.3.1984.
Further
the
respondent
no.
3
took
admission as regular student in I.T.I. course
in
the
year
2000
to
2002
and
simultaneously he was also pursuing
studies as regular student of class 11th and
12th in the same year. Learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that it is very
surprising that how respondent no. 3 can
attend classes simultaneously at two places
, which is against the rules.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further argued that the respondent no.3 on
the
basis
of
forged
and
fabricated
documents and wrong date of birth was
appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher
by the Uttar Pradesh Basic Shiksha
Parishad and was regularly promoted and is
presently working as Head Master, as such
his appointment be cancelled and the salary
paid to him be recovered by the State
authorities.

7. It was further argued by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that
letters dated 29.6.2021 and 21.11.2020
were sent by the petitioner mentioning
each and every fraudulent activities of
respondent
no.3
with
documentary
evidence to the respondent No. 2, who
decided
the
same
exculpating
the
respondent no.3 without applying fair and
legal mind in connivance with him with
ulterior motives and the allegation levelled
by the petitioner was ignored and no
action was taken by the concerned Basic
Shiksha Adhikari against the respondent
No.3 and the finding was given that his
date of birth is correct.
964 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8. Per contra, learned counsel
appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2
submits that petitioner has no locus to file
the present writ petition challenging the
appointment of respondent no. 3 as he is
not aggrieved person nor he has any
concern with the fraud committed by
respondent no.3 who got enrolled with
different date of birth in two schools
simultaneously and in this regard after due
enquiry the Basic Shiksha Adhikari has
given finding that the date of birth of
respondent no.3 is not forged and the
representation of the petitioner was rejected
by the authorities concerned after due
verification. Further the present writ
petition is not a Public Interest Litigation
nor there is any prayer for a writ of quo
warranto.

9. After considering the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties and after perusal of the record, we
find that for a person to prefer the writ
petition, 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. Thus in order to prefer a
writ, the person entitled would be one who
has either been wrongly deprived of his
entitlement which he is legally entitled to
receive and it does not include any kind of
disappointment or personal inconvenience.
It is settled proposition of law that the
person who suffers from legal injury only
can challenge the act or action or order by
filing a writ petition inasmuch as the writ
petition under Article 226 of Constitution
of India is maintainable for enforcing a
statutory or legal right or when there is a
complaint by the petitioner that there is
breach of statutory duty on the part of
authorities. Thus, there must be a judicially
enforceable right for the enforcement of
which the writ jurisdiction can be resorted
to and not for the purpose of settlement of a
personal grievance. In the present case, the
petitioner fails to establish his any legal
right or able to show any breach of
statutory duty on the part of authorities.

10. The same view was observed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. Collector,
(2012) 4 SCC 407 with regard to the locus
of a complainant and was pleased to
observe as under:-

"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 litigant. The
complainant cannot be the party to the lies.
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
lies. A fanciful or sentimental grievance
may not be sufficient to confer a locus
stand to sue upon the individual. There
must be injuria or a legal grievance which
can be appreciated and not a stat pro
rationed valuntas 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
1 All. Tribhuwan Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
965
person having a remote interest cannot be
permitted to become a party in the lies, 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."

11. The same view was taken by the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Dharam Raj Vs. State of U.P and others,
(2010) 2 AWC 1878 (All) with respect to
the locus of complainant and was pleased
to observe as under:-

"9. As evident from narration of the
facts given above, it is evident that the
petitioner was one of the complainants in
the complaint against the respondent No.
4 on 12.3.2008. The action has since been
taken on the complaint so made by the
petitioner
and
others
against
the
respondent No. 4, and fine of Rs. 5,000
has been imposed.

10.
In
the
circumstances,
the
petitioner cannot have any grievance in
the matter, and he is not an aggrieved
person rather he is a person annoyed,

11. In the case of R. v. London
Country Keepers of the Peace of Justice,
(1890) 25 QBD 357, the Court has 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.

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

12. 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.

13. 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 satisfied 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.
v. Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi and Ors.
AIR 1999 SC 943 and Laxminarayan R.
Bhattad and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
and Anr. (2003) 5 SCC 413].

14. 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 v. Home Insurance Co. of New York
AIR 1974 SC 1719 and State of Rajasthan
v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1977 SC
1361).

15. In Jasbhai Motibhai Desat v.
Roshan Kumar Hazi Bashir Ahmad and
Ors.: AIR 1976 SC 578, the Apex Court has
held that only a person who is aggrieved by
966 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 damnum 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 hang on. Therefore, he
is not a "person aggrieved" to challenge the
ground of the no objection certificate."

In Northern Plastics Ltd. v. Hindustan
Photo Films Mfg Co. Ltd. and Ors.
MANU/SC/1151/1997
MANU/SC/
1151/1997 : (1997) 4 SCC 452, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court again considered the
meaning of "person aggrieved" and "locus
of a rival Government undertaking" and
held that a rival businessman cannot
maintain a writ petition on the ground that
its business prospects would be adversely
affected.

16. The view taken by us that the
petitioner is not a person aggrieved, thus he
has no locus standi to file the present writ
petition thereby challenging the order dated
16.3.2009
passed
by
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Jaisinghpur, district Sultanpur
is also supported by the decision of this
Court in the case of Suresh Singh v.
Commissioner Moradabad Division 1993
(1) AWC 601, where it was held that in an
inquiry under Section 95(g) of the U.P.
Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, the complainant
who was Up-Pradhan could be a witness in.
an inquiry but had no locus standi to
approach this Court against the order of the
State authorities, for the reasons that none
of his personal statutory right are affected.

17. As such the petitioner has no focus
standi to file the present writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Even otherwise having regard to the facts
and circumstances of the case, we are not
inclined to exercise our discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India."

12. When the facts of the instant case
are tested on the touchstone of the law laid
down in the aforesaid two judgments, it
clearly comes out that the petitioner has no
legal right of his own and neither has
suffered from any legal injury, rather is
only a complainant, and thus would not
have any locus to prefer the present
petition.

13. Further the Hon'ble Supreme
Court
in
the
case
of
Ayaaubkhan
Noorkhan
Pathan
Vs.
State
of
1 All. Smt. Pushpa Gupta Vs. Subhash Chandra & Anr.
967
Maharashtra and others, AIR 2013 SC
58 was pleased to observe in paragraph 22
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 but in the
exceptional circumstances, the Court may
examine the issue and in exceptional
circumstances the Court may proceed suomotu. For the sake of convenience, the
relevant observations in the case of
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (supra)
are reproduced as under:-

"22. 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 the exceptional circumstances
as referred to above, if the actual persons
aggrieved, because of ignorance, illiteracy,
in articulation 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 bonafides 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."

14. This Court has gone through the
entire petition and no such averment has
been made anywhere in the entire petition
that the actual aggrieved persons because
of ignorance, illiteracy, in articulation or
poverty are unable to approach the Court
and in those circumstances the petitioner
has approached this Court. Thus, the
present
case
would
not
stand
the
exceptional circumstances as have been
spelt out by the Apex Court in the cases
of
Ayaaubkhan
Noorkhan
Pathan
(supra) and Dharm Raj (supra).

15. Accordingly, we find that the
petitioner has no locus to file the present
writ petition challenging the appointment
of respondent no.3 as he is not an aggrieved
person nor he has any concern with the
fraud alleged to have been committed by
respondent no.3. The objection raised by
the learned counsel for respondent nos.1
and 2 appears to be justified regarding the
locus of the petitioner.

16. Accordingly, keeping in view the
aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2022)01ILR A967
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

S.C.C. Revision No. 135 of 2019

Smt. Pushpa Gupta ...Revisionist
Versus
Subhash Chandra & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ayush Khanna, Sri Vaishali Sahu, Sri Atul
Dayal

A. Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code, 1908:
Order XV Rule 5 - The U.P. Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 197 - Section 30(2) - The Court below
has observed that the lower court has finalized
the question of law between the parties and has
further noted that the Court has no jurisdiction