Madhya Pradesh High Court
Koushal Prasad Malviya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 April, 2022
Author: Nandita Dubey
Bench: Nandita Dubey
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE NANDITA DUBEY
ON THE 29th OF APRIL, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 26797 of 2021
Between:-
KOUSHAL PRASAD MALVIYA S/O
MANAVCHANDRA MALVIYA, AGED ABOUT 58
YEARS, R/O KAMLA HIGH TECH CITY, 143, WARD
NO.14, KULAMADI ROAD, HOSHANGABAD ROAD,
NARMADAPURAM (M.P.)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI DINESH UPADHYAY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, COOPERATIVE DEPTT.,
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (M.P.)
2. COMMISSIONER COOPERATIVE AND REGISTRAR
COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MP VINDHYACHAL
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (M.P.)
3. JOINT COMMISSIONER, COOPERATIVE DIVISION,
NARMADAPURAM, DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD
(M.P.)
4. SHRI R.K. DUBEY, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK, HOSHANGABAD
(M.P.)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SARTHAK SHRIVASTAVA, PANEL LAWYER)
T h is petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner is an employee serving in the District Central Cooperative Bank, Hoshangabad. He has filed this petition alleging rampant corruption in the District Cooperative Bank, Hoshangabad by the private respondent No.4, who is the Chief Executive Officer at District Central Cooperative Bank, Hoshangabad.
Allegations have been made that several charge-sheets have been issued to Signature Not Verified SAN respondent No.4 from time to time and he was also faced under suspension but the Digitally signed by SHARAN JEET KAUR JASSAL Date: 2022.04.30 13:49:56 IST same has been subsequently revoked and he was again reinstated in service.
2Another Writ Petition No.26965/2019 was also filed praying for holding enquiry against him, which is still pending.
It is further pointed out that earlier also a writ petition No.12719/2016 has been filed for direction to hold enquiry into the corruption charges against Shri R.K. Dubey, Chief Executive Officer, District Central Cooperative Bank, Hoshangabad and other officers who have derelicted their duties.
A perusal of this petition shows that the same was disposed of directed the petitioner to take recourse to law as advised and parallel proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is unwarranted. It was further stated that in case any representation is filed to respondent No.1 he would respond to the same and disclosed the out come of the enquiry if initiated. Now, the petitioner is again before this Court stating that he has made several complaints to the Commissioner Cooperative and Registrar Cooperative Societies demanding enquiry into the illegalities, irregularities and embezzlement be committed in the Bank. However, no action has been taken in the matter.
When the counsel for the petitioner has been asked to clarify his locus for filing this petition, he has no reply. He stated that he is an employee and has earlier filed the writ petition No.12719/2016 as President of employee union. However, he is unable to show as to what legal injury has been caused to him by the respondent No.4.
It seems that the petitioner is taking out his personal vendetta against the respondent No.4 by filing repeated petitions and complaints, though he himself is not aggrieved by any of his action as none of the document filed along with this petition shows any legal injury caused to the present petitioner.
It is settled proposition of law that only a person who has suffered or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a Court of law. There is no dispute that the rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be enforced only by an aggrieved person, except in the case where the writ prayed for is for Habeas Corpus or quo warranto. Another exception in the Signature Not Verified general rule is the filing of a writ petition in public interest.
SAN Digitally signed by SHARAN JEET KAURThe person who wants to file a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution JASSAL Date: 2022.04.30 13:49:56 IST of India has, therefore, to show that he has a statutory/legal right which has been or 3 is threatened to be violated.
The status of the petitioner in the present case is that of complainant, thus at the most, he could have led the evidence as witness but he cannot claim the possession of adversarial litigant. The complainant cannot be a party to the lis. A legal right is an averment of entitlement arising out of law. Thus a person who raises a grievance must show that he has suffered some legal injury [vide (2012) 4 SCC 407 Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad and others ]. In the present case, apart from stating that petitioner was the complainant, he has not shown that any of his statutory or legal right has been affected.
In view of aforesaid legal position, it is held that the petitioner has no locus to file this petition. It is pertinent to note that petitioner himself is employee serving in the District Central Cooperative Bank, Hoshangabad, despite that the instant petition has been filed. It seems that through this petition, the petitioner is trying to take out his personal vendetta against the private respondent, which cannot be permitted. The right to avail a remedy under the law is the right of every citizen but such right cannot be extended to misuse the judicial process.
Since, the petitioner has not learnt from the past mistakes and is still filing repeated petitions against the respondent No.4, though he has no personal grievance nor any of his statuary or legal right is affected by any action of respondent No.4, this petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand Only) to be deposited by the petitioner online in the National Defence Fund (NDF) within a period of fifteen days from today, and a receipt thereof be filed in the registry of this Court.
(NANDITA DUBEY) JUDGE sjk Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by SHARAN JEET KAUR JASSAL Date: 2022.04.30 13:49:56 IST