Rajiv Sharma & Mahendra Dayal, JJ.
1. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Bulbul Godiyal, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. R.K. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the Corporation. Ms. Bulbul Godiyal, learned Additional Advocate General has raised a preliminary objection that as the petitioner is an accredited journalist of Daily Newspaper 'Urdu Qaumi Ailan', he has no locus standi to file the instant writ petition for a direction to the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to constitute a Committee for conducting the inquiry in the matter of biased appointments made on the posts of Deputy Manager, Technical Assistant, Junior Officer or Peon in the U.P. State Warehousing Corporation, Lucknow, contained in Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition. She further submits that earlier, the petitioner has preferred a complaint dated 30.1.2014, Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, before the Chief Minister and Chief Secretary and without waiting for the outcome for a reasonable time, the petitioner has rushed to this Court.
2. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is actively working against the menace of corruption which is destroying the main fabric of the country. Therefore, he has preferred a complaint as stated here-in-above. According to him, the aforesaid posts have been filled in by the kith and kin of higher officials of the Corporation. Therefore, the instant writ petition has been preferred by him.
3. Considered the submissions made by the parties' Counsel. As evident from narration of the facts given above, the petitioner has preferred complaints to the Chief Minister and Chief Secretary against the appointments made by the Selection Committee. During the course of arguments, it has been submitted that the Board has made selections and the said Board has not been impleaded, though it is proper and necessary party and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground non-misjoinder of necessary party.
4. 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 inconvenience. 'Person aggrieved' means a person who is injured or he is adversely affected in a legal sense. Thus, when the petitioner has not participated in the selection process he cannot be said to be an 'aggrieved person' but can easily be termed as 'person annoyed'.
5. 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 resorted 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 Vs. Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi and Others, and Laxminarayan R. Bhattad and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, ].
6. Legal right is an averment of entitlement arising out of law. It is, in fact, an advantage or benefit conferred upon a person by a rule of law [ Shanti Kumar R. Canji Vs. The Home Insurance Co. of New York, and State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, ].
7. In Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed 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 a 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 since 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. In fact, 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.
8. In Northern Plastics Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd. and Others, , the Hon'ble Supreme Court again considered the meaning of "person aggrieved" and "locus of a rival Government undertaking" and held that a rival businessman cannot maintain a writ petition on the ground that its business prospects would be adversely affected.
9. In view of above, the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. Therefore, a litigant, who approached this Court in extra ordinary equitable jurisdiction, makes him liable to pay an exemplary cost for wasting precious time of the Court, which could have been utilized for other more deserving cases. Thus the petitioner must
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
be saddled with the liability of heavy cost so that in future such thing may not recur. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The costs is being awarded in view of the Apex Court's decision in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India (UOI), . The petitioner is directed to deposit the cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- before the Registrar of this Court within a month, failing which, the District Magistrate, Lucknow will recover the same from the petitioner and after recovering the same, it shall be transmitted to the Registrar of this Court. The Registrar, on its turn, shall transmit the same to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow.