AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:-
(i) may please quash the order passed by respondent No.4, Commissioner, Jabalpur in Case No.0935/Appeal/2017-18 dated 19.06.2019, for being in
violation of Order XLI Rule 17(1) of Civil Procedure Code (Annexure P-1).
(ii) Any other direction may kindly be issued to the respondent as deemed fit in the present circumstances.
The case of the petitioner is that he made a complaint regarding corruption against respondent No.3, pursuant to which respondent No.3 was removed
from the post of Sarpanch by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Seoni. Against the aforesaid order, respondent No.3 filed an appeal. In the
appeal, Commissioner vide order dated 28.03.2018, set aside the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer and remanded the matter back to the
respondent No.2/Chief Executive Officer to decide the matter afresh after issuance of fresh notice to respondent No.3 and after giving proper
opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. Thereafter, vide order dated 17.07.2018, respondent No.3 was removed from the post of Sarpanch.
Against the order dated 17.07.2018, respondent No.3 filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jabalpur. The Commissioner after considering the
entire record held that the allegations against the respondent No.3 were not found proved and vide order dated 19.06.2019, set aside the order of
respondent No.2 dated 17.07.2018.
The contention of Shri Quazi Fakhruddin, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the Commissioner is utter violation of Order 41
Rule 16, 17 of the C.P.C. and the law laid down by the Supreme Court. It is submitted that petitioner was a caveator before the Commissioner, but
memo of appeal was not supplied to him.
On 13.03.2019, the appellant (respondent No.3 in present petition) did not appear when the matter was called for hearing, under the circumstances,
the Commissioner ought to have dismissed the appeal, instead the appeal was decided on merits contrary to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 16, 17 of
the C.P.C.
A preliminary objection has been raised regarding the locus of the petitioner. It is stated that the petition is not maintainable and deserves to be
dismissed, as the petitioner is not an aggrieved person. He has only made a complaint against the petitioner.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the documents on record, it is observed that this petition deserves to be
dismissed.
It is evident from the record that the petitioner filed a complaint against respondent No.3, alleging that false/incorrect information was given by her in
her nomination form and that she had encroached and taken illegal possession of public temple. Considering the complaint filed by the petitioner,
respondent No.3 was removed from the post of Sarpanch. This order was subsequently set aside by the Commissioner in appeal.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that as the enquiry and action against the respondent No.3 was initiated on the basis of complaint
filed by him, hence he is a necessary party and has a locus and legal right to file the present petition.
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 :-
“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 273;6 and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare
Association (2) v. S.C. Sekar & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 784).
A “legal rightâ€, 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).â€
According to the petitioner, he was the complainant, thus at the most, he could have led the evidence as witness but he cannot claim the possession of
adverserial litigant. A person who raises a grievance must show that he has suffered some legal injury. In the present case, apart from stating that he
was the complainant, the petitioner has not shown that any of his statutory or legal right has been affected.
Thus, in the light of the aforesaid law laid down and the facts of the case, the petitioner has no locus to file the present petition. Hence, the present
petition is dismissed as being not maintainable.