Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. D.S. Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 February, 2020
Author: Nandita Dubey
Bench: Nandita Dubey
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Petition No.3775/2020
(Dr. D.S. Sharma Vs. State of M.P., Through-Lokayukt)
Jabalpur, Dated: 24-02-2020
Shri Gulab Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Abhijeet Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent-
Lokayukt on advance copy.
Heard on admission.
This petition has been filed against the State of M.P., Through- Lokayukt seeking the following reliefs:-
"A. It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to inquire the complainants dated 08/09/2017, 26/03/2019 and 24/05/2019 of petitioner as per law in.
B. It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash order dated 22/11/2018 passed in tk]iz] 776/17, order dated 25.04.2019 passed in fofo/k vkosnu dzekad 7966/CS/26/03/2019, and order dated 06/06/2019 passed in fofo/k vkosnu dzekad 1042/24/05/2019 by respondent.
C. It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to grant liberty to move fresh complainant and further direct the respondent to inquire as per law.
D. Any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of this case, along with the cost of this writ petition also be awarded. "
Petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of Lokayukt, Bhopal on his complaint regarding illegal construction/encroachment made by one Rewaram Gangarekae on the plot No.2, Parika Housing Society, Phase-II, Chunabhatti, Bhopal. It is stated that question No.6385 dated 12/03/2003 and question No.6150 in the year 2012 were raised in the Vidhansabha, the concerned revenue authority gave two different answers. He filed complaints regarding this to the respondent-
Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Date: 26/02/2020 15:59:21THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.3775/2020 (Dr. D.S. Sharma Vs. State of M.P., Through-Lokayukt) Lokayukt, but the same has not looked into and the complaint has been closed.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Lokayukt submits that the petitioner has earlier filed three complaints which has been mentioned in page No.46, 51 and 55 of the compilation. While considering the complaint, proper inquiry was conducted. It was found that the persons against whom the complaint has been made has purchased the land by registered sale-deed, hence, the complaint was closed. Thereafter again, the complaint dated 26/03/2019 and 24/05/2019 was made and both the times, since the inquiry has already been conducted, the complaint was closed. It is pointed out that petitioner had not filed any documents as reflected from fofo/k vkosnu dzekad 7966/CS/26/03/2019 and fofo/k vkosnu dzekad 1042/24/05/2019.
On a query put to the counsel for the petitioner regarding his locus, it is stated that he is only a complainant. It is not reflected from the documents that any of his legal right has been infringed by the act of the respondents.
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 general rule is the filing of a writ petition in public interest.
Who can said to be a person aggrieved, has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2013) 4 SCC 465, wherein the Supreme Court has observed :-
Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Date: 26/02/2020 15:59:21THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.3775/2020 (Dr. D.S. Sharma Vs. State of M.P., Through-Lokayukt) "9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the Authority/Court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a court of law.
A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the Authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that, the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. Infact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. (Vide : State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, AIR 1952 SC 12; Saghir Ahmad & Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 728; Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., AIR 1962 SC 1044; Rajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 2736; and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association (2) v. S.C. Sekar & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 784).
10. A "legal right", means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Date: 26/02/2020 15:59:21 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.3775/2020 (Dr. D.S. Sharma Vs. State of M.P., Through-Lokayukt) conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, "person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised. (Vide: Shanti Kumar R. Chanji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York, AIR 1974 SC 1719; and State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 1361)."
Earlier, petitioner has made three complaints to the authorities and all the complaints were closed by the authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out as to which of his legal right has been infringed. It seems that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature and this petition has been filed with an oblique motive to take out his personal vendetta.
Under the facts and circumstances, this petition is nothing but a misuse of process of court and wastage of valuable time of this Court. The right to avail a remedy under the law is the right of every citizen but such right cannot extend to misuse the judicial process. The scarce and precious time of the court is wasted in dealing with such non- deserving petition, whereas other deserving or genuine matters have to wait in queue. Such an act of petitioner is strongly deprecated. In such circumstances, I consider it appropriate to dismiss this frivolous petition with a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only), to be deposited online within a period of one week from today in the National Defence Fund (NDF) and submit the receipt thereof before the Registry within a further period of one week .
Consequently, this petition is dismissed.
(Nandita Dubey) Judge @shish Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Date: 26/02/2020 15:59:21