Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Stand of Respondent No.3:

13. The learned counsel for respondent no.3 contended that the writ petition was not maintainable and that it was a devious device by the petitioner to stop the business of the petitioner for vested reasons. It was contended that the nephew of the petitioner was running a marriage hall in a portion of the land of the petitioner by the name of Laxmi Narayan Vatika and, therefore, it was no longer open to the petitioner to point fingers at respondent no.3 for running a marriage hall. It was further contended that petitioner no.2 is not a resident of Allahabad and is a permanent resident of Kanpur and that he is the brother of a retired Judge of the High Court who alone is residing in the adjoining premises. It was contended that the present petition is nothing but a proxy litigation on behalf of an ex-Judge of the High Court, who exerted pressure upon the district administration, on the basis of which the license was cancelled, but, was validly restored when directed by the State Minister. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had no locus standi to file the present writ petition. It was further contended that the application filed by the respondent was not a review application, but, was only a representation on which action was taken by the authorities.

Maintainability of Writ Petition:

29. It was urged that the writ petition is not maintainable contending that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Kanpur and has nothing to do with the alleged nuisance, if any, being created by respondent no.3, as he is not residing at the premises indicated in the writ petition. It was urged that it was a proxy litigation on behalf of a retired Judge. In this regard, the Court finds that respondent no.3 has not denied that he is a co-owner of the premises, which is adjoining the premises of respondent no.3. Once this fact is clear that he is a co-owner, he has the locus standi to question the activity of respondent no.3, if such activity is creating a nuisance and is violating the terms and conditions of the Act of 1973, the Sarais Act and the Upvidhi of 2012. The mere fact that one of the co-owners is the retired Judge of the High Court, does not mean and cannot mean that such grievances cannot be raised in a writ jurisdiction. Every citizen has a right to approach the Court if he is aggrieved by an action or inaction by the authority. If a citizen is unable to enjoy the property he can pray for an issuance of a writ. We, accordingly, are of the opinion that the contention of respondent no.3 that the writ petition is not maintainable and is only a proxy litigation, is misconceived and is rejected.