Allahabad High Court
A.N. Pandey vs Union Of India And 3 Others on 14 November, 2022
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16593 of 2022 Petitioner :- A.N. Pandey Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Hem Pratap Singh Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard Shri Brijesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri V.K. Upadhyay, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Hem Pratap Singh learned counsel appearing for the Vice Chancellor/Chairman Executive Committee, Banaras Hindu Universtity, Varanasi.
Present writ petition has been filed to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent no.2, Vice Chancellor, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi to grant sanction for prosecution under Sections 191, 192, 193 IPC and Section 7, 9, 10 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the respondent Nos.3 and 4.
Shri V.K. Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground 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 person. Only a person who has sufferred, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/ action/ order, etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right. Moreover, the legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the person aggrieved himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the competent court for relief. Infact present proceeding is a proxi litigationon behalf of Shri Ajay Shankar Pandey, who happens to be the son of the petitioner. It is also submitted that Shri Ajyay Shankar Pandey has also invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing writ petition i.e. Writ-A No.16965 of 2016 (Ajay Shankar Pandey Vs. Vice Chancellor, Banaras Hindu University and 2 others), wherein he had come up questioning the action of University for not treating him to be eligible for being considered for the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology, Faculty of Arts on the ground that he has not availed his National Eligibility Test in the concerned subject. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.04.2016 had rejected the claim of petitioner in that writ petition with the observation that "We cannot grant any equivalence as this is clearly an academic matter falling squarely within the powers of the University Grants Commission to treat or not to treat the said certificate as equivalent in the concerned subject. On the strength of the said arguments we cannot bend the rules. Consequently, there is no merit in the petition, it is accordingly dismissed."
Learned Senior Counsel submits that even inspite of aforesaid dismissal order, the son of the petitioner had again approached this Court by preferring Writ-A No.24693 of 2018 (Ajay Shankar Pandey Vs. Union of India and 13 others), wherein the University had taken an objection that earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, i.e. Writ Petition No.16965 of 2016, was dismissed by Division Bench of this Court on 18.4.2016, on merits, the second petition would not lie by virtue of Chapter-22 Rule-7 of Rules of the Court. Consequently, the same was also dismissed vide order dated 28.11.2018.
Lastly, learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2013) 4 SCC 465, wherein it is observed as under:-
"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; Sagir 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 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).
11. In Anand Sharadchandra Oka v. University of Mumbai, AIR 2008 SC 1289, a similar view was taken by this Court, observing that, if a person claiming relief is not eligible as per requirement, then he cannot be said to be a person aggrieved regarding the election or the selection of other persons."
In this backdrop, learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner does not have any legal right that can be enforced under Art.226 of the Constitution as he is not aggrieved party.
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and find that admittedly the son of the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction in the aforementioned writ petitions, wherein he could not succeed. Therefore, considering the pleadings as has been set up before us, we do not find that by any stretch of imagination the petitioner can be put up in the category of aggrieved person.
Confronted with the situation, once the Court has indicated its mind in negative, learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly states that he does not want to press the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Order Date :- 14.11.2022 ML