Allahabad High Court
Lakkhi Sonkar vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 18 September, 2023
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:180417 Reserved on.- 25.07.2023 Delivered on.-18.09.2023 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11528 of 2023 Petitioner :- Lakkhi Sonkar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Singh,Hari Shanker Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Dinesh Kumar Singh,Pradeep Singh Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent no.5 even in the revised call.
2. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 and Mr. Vijay Prakash Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
3. The petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 14.03.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2 Additional Commissioner whereby the appeal filed by respondent no. 6 against order cancelling his fair price shop license, has been allowed.
4. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 6 namely Sohrab was appointed as Fair Price Shop Agent for the Gram Panchayat Chaurikhas Block, Tehsil & District Bhadohi. On a complaint made on behalf of fair price shop card holders, inspection was carried out on 06.05.2020 wherein surplus stock of 89 bags of wheat, each of 50 kg. and 96 bags of rice, each of 50 kg. was found. Such excess stock of wheat and rice was not in consonance with the stock register. At the time of inspection card holders, namely, Kuraisa wife of Sama, Shayra Bano wife of Jafar, Pratibha Dube wife of Onkarnath, Geeta wife of Lakkhi Sonkar (petitioner in this writ petition), Tara Devi wife of Gopinath, Rabia wife of Sarafat, Shabnam wife of Sageer, Prema Devi wife of Chhotu, Mehnaj son of Javed, Ameena Begum wife of Mateen Hasami, Jahanaara wife of Firoz and Rehana wife of Alamgeer were present. The aforesaid card holders gave written statements regarding allegations that the respondent no. 6 was giving less foodgrains than the amount for which card holder were entitled.
5. On the basis of aforesaid spot inspection report, the license of fair price shop of respondent no. 6 was suspended by order dated 08.05.2020 and a reply was called from respondent no. 6. Pursuant to suspension order, surplus stock recovered from the shop was taken into custody and was handed over to Fair Price Shop Agent of Gram Panchayat Chak Bhuidhar. By order dated 27.05.2020, the aforesaid recovered surplus food grains was directed to be distributed amongst the card holders of village Chaurikhas.
6. The respondent no. 6, submitted a detailed reply dated 13.05.2020 denying the allegations as made against him in distribution of essential commodities and allegations of surplus stock. He submitted notarial affidavits of 12 card holders who had stated therein that the foodgrains were being distributed in accordance with law. On 05.06.2020, the respondent no. 4, after considering reply of respondent no. 6, terminated the agency of respondent no. 6 and simultaneously cancelled the agreement. While passing the aforesaid order, respondent no. 4 has recorded categorical finding that the affidavits produced by respondent no. 6 are stereo typed and apparently appears to have been prepared by respondent no. 6 himself. The respondent no. 4 has also recorded that the affidavits as produced by respondent no. 6 bearing joint signatures of the card holders as well as respondent no. 6 are under same hand writing.
7. Aggrieved by the order dated 05.06.2020, the respondent no. 6 filed appeal before the Commissioner Vindhyachal Division Mirzapur, which was transferred to the Court of Additional Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur for disposal. The petitioner being husband of card holder Geeta, filed his vakalatnama dated 03.07.2020 to defend the termination order. The appeal was allowed by order dated 14.03.2023 in favour of respondent no. 6. Hence, the present petition.
8. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent no. 6 regarding locus/maintainability of the writ petition as petitioner is simply a complainant.
9. Answering the preliminary objection, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the scope and ambit of aggrieved person, particularly in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case keeping in mind the benevolent piece of legislation i.e. National Food Security Act, 2013 and Rules 2015 framed there under and Control order dated 10.08.2016 has been elaborated in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Case of AIR 1976 SC 578 Jashbhai Motibai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmad and others. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the actual aggrieved person has to be distinguished from a stranger. The Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the scope of aggrieved person has made criteria to distinguish the actual aggrieved person from stranger. A solid central zone of aggrieved persons and concentric nebulous zone of strangers has been conceived but providing a rider that all persons in this nebulous zone will not be treated as stranger, some of them have to be treated as aggrieved persons. The criteria of the relevant paragraphs are quoted hereinbelow:-
36. 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.
37. 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 outerzone may not be "persons aggrieved.
38. 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 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 (1) United States v.Storer Broadcasting Co.351 U.S.192. (2) Kansas City Power & light Co. v. McKay 350 U. S.884. 6-390SCr/76 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 ?
10. An aggrieved person has to be defined, keeping in mind the fact as to whether the petitioner is a person whose legal right has been infringed and 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. It has also to be seen as to whether the petitioner is 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.
11. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent no. 6 submits that petitioner is not an aggrieved person rather he is a person annoyed. In support of his contention he is relied upon following judgment which is quoted herein below:-
i. Dharam Raj Vs. State of U.P. 2009 0 Supreme(All) 2594. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:-
"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, 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 in convenience. "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 restored 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. Nursingha Charan Sarangi and others, and Laxaminarayan R. Bhattad and others v. State of Maharashtra and another).
14. Legal right is an averment of entitlement arising out of law. It is, infact, an advantage or benefit conferred upo a person by a rule of law Shanti Kumar R. Canji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York, and State of Rajasthan v. Union of India and others.
15. In Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Hazi Bashir Ahmad and others, 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 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 damnium 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. Infact, 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."
ii. Sriram Prasad Vs. State of U.P. 2015 0 Supreme(All) 1660. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:-
"12. This Court in Ram Baran Versus State of U.P. and others, 2010(2) AWC 1947 (LB), again reiterated the principle that a complainant would have no locus to maintain the petition against the final order passed by the District Magistrate pursuant to direction in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the Pradhan.
13. In the case of R. v. London Country Keepers of the peace of Justice, (1890) 25 Qbd 357, the Court 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."
14. The petitioner complainant shall have an opportunity during the course of regular enquiry to lead oral and documentary evidence if provided under the rules, but would have no locus to assail the final order passed by the authority on the complaint.
15. Having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere. The petition filed at the behest of a complainant being not maintainable is, accordingly, dismissed. "
iii. Babban Vs. State of U.P. 2019 0 Supreme(All) 450. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:-
"14. The petitioner complainant shall have an opportunity during the course of regular enquiry to lead oral and documentary evidence if provided under the rules, but would have no locus to assail the final order passed by the authority on the complaint".
15. Having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere. The petition filed at the behest of a complainant being not maintainable is, accordingly, dismissed."
iv. Saavan Sri Vs. State of U.P. and others 2022 (156) RD 465. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:-
"34. In view of that law laid down by the Supreme Court as applied by the division bench of this Court and a long line of decisions (of learned single-Judge bench), the observations made to the contrary in Akhlaq (supra) and Smt. Muneeta (supra) giving the right of appeal to the complainant is clearly contrary to the binding principle and reasoning on that issue. In the context of disputes involving revocation of suspension of a fair price shop agreement, a ''aggrieved person' or ''person aggrieved' must be a person whose rights have been prejudiced by such order. Clearly, the present petitioner/complainant is not that person.
35. As held in Ashfaq (supra), the beneficiary cannot be a 'person aggrieved'. He only has right to receive essential commodities food grains, fuel, etc. on assured basis. However, he cannot choose his fair price shop agency. The difference between the 'person aggrieved' and a 'person annoyed' was also noted by the division bench of this Court in Dharam Raj (supra). Though, a complainant may qualify as a 'person annoyed', yet, he may never be a 'person aggrieved' (by an order passed in favour of the private respondent). Consequently, the petitioner could neither have filed an appeal and he has no locus to maintain the present petition.
36. What then survives for consideration is - if the Court may offer any consideration in such matters. Here, another learned Single Judge of this Court in Yogendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., Misc. Single No. 23298 of 2016, vide order 27.9.2016, allowed such petition. However, it was not by way of right given to the complainant, rather, in that case, interference was made more by way of suo moto exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on the intimation received by the petitioner who also happened to be the complainant. Therefore, the ratio in that case only provides for an exception rather than a rule to be applied in such cases.
37. Also, it cannot be overlooked, it stands generally recognized that the State Government and/or the Gaon Sabha are the collective bodies entrusted and interested in the enforcement of the rights of the beneficiaries for whose benefit the fair price shop machinery exists. They may, if not satisfied with the order of the appeal authority, approach this Court, in appropriate case. Leaving that right intact, no interference is warranted at the instance of the present petitioner, in the instant case. The objection being raised as to the procedure adopted may not allow the Court to create a locus with the present petitioner to maintain the present writ petition. It is also not a ground as may commend to the Court to set aside the fair price shop arrangement, for that reason alone. Sufficient punishment appears to have been dealt out to the private respondent by suspension served out. It is expected, the said respondent would conduct his activity in accordance with law or face fresh suspension proceedings, in face of fresh breach."
v. Gram Vikas Sewa Samiti Vs. State of U.P. and others Neutral Citation No.-2018:AHC:141574. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:-
"19. The scheme of the Act establishes the fact that the rights of the card holders are primarily to receive the food grains, essential commodities and other benefits under various schemes. This right does not extend to make a preference to receive such food-grains from a particular person nor does it entitle the card holder interfere in the day to day running of the fair price shops.
21. The rights of ration card holders are defined, regulated but also restricted by the National Food Security Act, 2013 and the Rules framed thereunder. The card-holders can also be granted compensation or allowance for denial of the entitlements under the Act. However, card-holders cannot decide the quantum of punishment to be imposed on a defaulting fair price shop dealer, as per the provisions of the Act. This function falls in the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act, the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities ( Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016, and the Government Orders holding the field. The preceding paragraphs catalogue the rights and remedies of eligible persons under the Act. They also detail the jurisdiction and obligation of the authorities under the Act. No further right to the ration card-holders is vested by the legislature. No additional right to the ration card holders can be granted by the courts."
12. Learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance upon the certain provisions of the relevant Act in order to support the contention of respondent no. 6 submitting that the writ petition is not maintainable. He submits that parliament, in order to provide adequate quantity of quality food at affordable prices to people to live a life with dignity and other incidental thereto, enacted the National Food Security Act, 2013. Section 3 of National Food Security Act provides that every person belonging to priority households identified under sub section (1)10 shall be entitled to receive 5 kg. food grains per person per month from the State Government under the Targeted Public Distribution System. It also provides that the household covered under Antyodaya Anya Yojana shall be entitled to 35 kg. of food grains per household per month at prices specified in Schedule 1 subject to scheme specified by Central Government for State. Thus, from the language of the Section 3 of the National Food Security Act, it can be interpreted that the ration card holder are entitled to receive food grains as per their right under the scheme. Section 8 of the National Food Security Act provides that in case of non supply of the entitled quantities of food grains or meals to the entitled person under Chapter II, such person shall be entitled to receive such food security allowance from the concerned State Government to be paid to each person within such time and manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government. Chapter VII of the National Food Security Act, 2013 provides mechanism for ration card holder in case fair price shop owner does not distribute the essential commodities. Section 15 of the aforesaid act speaks that every State Government shall appoint or designate, for each district, an officer to be the District Grievance Redressal Officer for expeditious and effective redressal of grievances of the aggrieved person in the matter relating to the distribution of the entitled food grains or meals under Chapter II and to enforce the entitlement under this act. Sub Section (5) of Section 15 provides that officer shall hear complaints regarding the non distribution of the entitled food grains or meals and matter relating thereto and take necessary actions for redressal. Sub Section (6) provides that any complainant or the officer or authority against whom any order has been passed by officer referred to in sub section (1), who is not satisfied with redressal of grievance may file an appeal against such order before the State Commission. The State Food Commission has been defined under section 16 of the National Food Security Act, 2013. The State Government has already stated that in case of failure of distributing essential commodity to ration card holder, the State Government shall pay food security allowance to the ration card holder as has been provided under section 8 of the said Act.
13. The Uttar Pradesh Food Security Rules, 2015 have been framed by Uttar Pradesh Government in exercise of power under section 40 of the National Food Security Act, 2013. The rule 4 of U.P. Food Security Rules, 2015 provides that State Government may appoint an Additional District Magistrate who is not engaged in the supply or distribution of food grains under the act as the District Grievance Redressal Officer. Rule 5 provides the procedure for disposal of complaint by the Additional District Magistrate and also power to direct the payment of food security allowance within such period not exceeding 30 days. Rule 7 provides that any person aggrieved with any order passed by District Grievance Redressal Officer may prefer an appeal before the commission within 30 days from the receipt of such order. "Commission" has been defied under Rule 2 (c) wherein it has been defined that State Food Commission constituted for State of Uttar Pradesh under sub rule (1) of Rule 3.
14. The right of card holders has been defined under the National Food Security Act, 2013 and procedure for complaint regarding irregularity and illegality of the distribution of the food grains has been provided under the National Food Security Act of U.P. Food Security Rules, 2015.
15. Keeping in mind the aforesaid provisions, the learned Standing Counsel submits that petitioner being husband of the card holder has right to move complaint to the Additional District Magistrate under the Act and Rules framed therein. The petitioner has not moved any complaint to ADM regarding irregularity and illegality in distribution of food grains regarding his legal right to get the food grains or food security allowance.
16. The license of the Fair Price Shop is issued u/s 3 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955, and Fair Price Shop owner acts as an agent of the Government to run a Fair Price Shop. The Uttar Pradesh Government in exercise of power u/s 3 of the Essential Commodities Act promulgated Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) order 2016. In clause 8 of Control order 2016, the procedure for disbursement of the foodgrains to the ration card holder has been provided. Sub-clause 7 of the clause 8 order 2016, speaks that competent authority shall take prompt action in respect of violation of any condition of license including any irregularity committed by the fair price shop owner, which may include suspension or cancellation of the fair price shop owner's license. The right of appeal and the person who is entitled to file the appeal has been provided in Clause 13 of order 2016. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that it is clearly provided that against the order of suspension, cancellation or restoration of the fair price shop license, the ration card holder or any other person does not have any right to file the appeal. Thus such person does not come under the definition of the aggrieved persons. Placing reliance upon the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in Case of Saavan Sri Vs. State of U.P. 2022(V)ADJ 347, learned Standing Counsel submits that the complainant has no right to file the appeal against revocation of suspension or denying the cancellation of Fair Price Shop license. The right of appeal has been given with respect to orders of denial or renewal of agreement to a fair price shop owner or an order of suspension or an order of cancellation of agreement of Fair price Shop. No other order or further orders has been made appealable. Thus an order of revocation of suspension of Fair Price Shop agreement is not appealable under Clause 13(3) of the Control Order 2016.
17. From reading of provisions of National Food Security Act, 2013 Rules 2015 and order 2016, it is clear that the complainant or ration card holder has not been given right to get the license of fair price shop cancelled. The procedure of the cancellation of the license of the Fair Price Shop has bee provided in Control Order 2016 and complainant has only right to set the law into motion for enquiry regarding irregularity and illegality in distribution of the essential commodities. To emphasize, the learned Standing Counsel submits that ration card holder has right to make a complaint to Additional District Magistrate/District Redressal Officer for getting the food grains and food allowance in case non distribution of food grains from the fair price shop.
18. Placing reliance upon the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in case of Dharam Raj Vs. State of U.P. 2010 AWC 1878 learned Standing Counsel submits that the complainant is not a person aggrieved and he has no right to file writ petition, as the complainant or ration card holder does not come within the definition of aggrieved person for requesting of cancellation of the license of fair price shop. 19. Learned Standing Counsel, addressing on the issue of maintainability of the writ petition submits that a person can file writ petition, under article 226 of Constitution of India for enforcement of any of the rights conferred by part III or any other purpose, only, if the legal rights of a person is violated. Therefore, the existence of the legal right is the condition precedent to invoke the writ jurisdiction. Placing reliance upon Uttkal University Vs. Dr. Nur Singha Charan Sarangi AIR 1999 Supreme Court 943, he submits that the legal and statutory right of the petitioner is to get only the food grains and for that purpose, a procedure has been provided in National Food Security Act and Rules framed therein. No legal right has been provided under any law to the petitioner to get the fair price shop license cancelled. It is totally the decision of State Authorities to cancel the license of fair price shop of the person who has violated the conditions of the allotment order as he acts as an agent of the government while having a license of the fair price shop. Thus the writ petition is not maintainable for the relief as prayed by the petitioner.
20. He further submits that the petitioner does not come under the definition of aggrieved person as a person who claims to be an "aggrieved person" has to first satisfy the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The legal right means entitlement arising out of legal rules. It may be defined as an advantage or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. In case of Ayub Khan Noor Khan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2013 SC 58, it is held that the expression "person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers psychological or imaginary injury. The meaning of the expression "person aggrieved" will have to be ascertained with reference to the purpose and provision of the statute.
21. In case of Naval Kishor Vs. State of U.P. 2017 (121) it has been held that the complainant has not been denied of or deprived of any legal rights, as the order of revocation of cancellation of fair price shop license does not affect the complainant in any manner. The complainant has only right to be examined in the inquiry not to be a party in the matter.
22. The expression "person aggrieved" has been considered in the judgment of Ravi Yashwant Bhor Vs. District Collector Raigad 2012(4) SC 407 in which it has been held that the complainant has to establish that he has been deprived of or denied of legal right and he has sustained injury to any legally protected interest. A fanciful or a sentimental grievance may not be sufficient to confer locus standi.
23. In another Division Bench judgment of Ameen Khan Vs. State of U.P. 2008(2) AWC 2002 it has been held that the complainant only could, at the most, be examined as a witness in the enquiry but could not be permitted to become party in the matter as he does not have any locus or legal right. In recent judgment of Shyam Babu Vs. State of U.P. 2022(6) ALJ 231 it has been held that in case any person prefers a writ petition, he has to establish that he has been deprived of or denied of legal right and he has sustained injury to any legally protected interest only then writ petition can be entertained as maintainable.
24. To sum up, learned Standing Counsel submits that in view of law laid down in different cases as detailed above, the complainant does not come under the definition of "person aggrieved" in the context of provision of the Essential Commodities Act and Control order 2016 promulgated by the Uttar Pradesh Government. In the proceeding of the cancellation of fair price shop license, petitioner as husband of the ration card holder can only make a complaint, on which enquiry can be instituted and in the inquiry proceeding he has right to get examined. Once the Competent Authority has concluded the enquiry and passed the order, complainant has no right to challenge the order of Competent Authority and if the order has been passed by Competent Authority the fair price shop owner may file an appeal wherein the complainant is not a necessary party as he is not aggrieved person. The complainant or the ration card holder has only right to get food grains and food allowance under the National Food Security Act, 2013 and Uttar Pradesh State Food Security Rules 2015.
25. Considering the definition of aggrieved person in the aforesaid Act and Rule, the rights of aggrieved person is only to get the foodgrains or food allowance as per procedure provided under relevant Act and Rules and in case statutory right of the petitioner is infringed, proper remedy has been provided under the Act and Rules as has already been discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Thus the aforesaid writ petition is not maintainable and the relief as prayed cannot be granted to the petitioner.
26. Thus, the present petition is liable dismissed as not maintainable.
27. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
28. Admittedly, the petitioner is a complainant (not even a card-holder) in the present case, who has assailed the order dated 14.03.2023 passed by respondent no. 2 Additional Commissioner whereby the appeal filed by respondent no. 6 against cancellation of his fair price shop license has been allowed. Thus, restoring the fair price shop license of respondent no. 6 considering catena of decisions as placed by counsel for the parties, the complainant would not be an aggrieved person.
29. The meaning of the expression "person aggrieved" will have to be ascertained with reference to the purpose and the provisions of the statute. One of the meanings is that person will be held to be aggrieved by a decision if that decision is materially adverse to him. The restricted meaning of the expression requires denial or deprivation of legal rights. A more legal approach is required in the background of statutes which do not deal with the property rights but deal with professional misconduct and morality.
30. Broadly, speaking a party or a person is aggrieved by a decision when, it only operates directly and injuriously upon his personal, pecuniary and proprietary rights.
31. The expression "person aggrieved" means a person who has suffered a legal grievance i.e a person against whom a decision has been pronounced which has lawfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something. The petitioner is not an aggrieved person by merely filing a complaint. The order of revocation of cancellation of fair price shop license does not affect him in any manner.
32. In the present case, it is evident that the petitioner is a complainant in a complaint against respondent no. 6, on which action has been taken against respondent no. 6. The respondent no. 6 being aggrieved by the aforesaid action on the complaint made by the petitioner has proceeded to challenge the same by means of filing an appeal which has been allowed restoring the fair price shop license to him. In these circumstances, the petitioner complainant cannot have any grievance in the matter as he is not an aggrieved person rather he is a "person annoyed".
33. This Court is of the opinion that 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 in convenience. "Person aggrieved" means a person who is injured or he is adversely affected in a legal sense. It is settled law that a person who suffers from legal injury only can challenge the act/action/order 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.
34. Legal right is an averment of entitlement arising out of law, it is, in fact, an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law.
35. The arguments as placed by learned Standing Counsel detailing the provisions of Essential Commodities Act 1955 and National Food Security Act, 2013 as well as U.P. Food Security Rules, 2015, it is clear that person annoyed like the complainant as well as card holders have all the remedies to move before the competent authority for redressal of their grievance regarding complaint as made by him as well as grievance of ration card holder who are entitled for the essential commodities and in case of failure of distribution of such essential commodities to ration card holder, he is also entitled for the security allowance as has been provided under the relevant act includes. In view of provisions of the relevant Act, includes the petitioner complainant is provided opportunity during course of regular enquiry to lead oral and documentary evidence if provided under the rules, but would not have no locus to assail the orders passed by authority considering his complaint.
36. Having due regards to the fact and circumstances of the case, the relevant provisions of the Acts and Rules as placed by learned Standing Counsel and catena of decisions, I am not inclined to interfere. The petition filed at the behest of complainant being not maintainable is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) Order Date :- 18.09.2023 Arti/Jitendra/-