Mohd. Najim Khan v. The Tahsildar

6. Prima facie, the proceedings could not take place due to strikes of the bar association and hence the case could not proceed in accordance with law.

7. It is submitted that frequent call of strikes by the bar association in gross violation of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India and another reported in 2003 (2) SCC 45 and Hussain and another Vs. Union of India reported in 2017 (5) SCC 702 as well as of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs. Naib Tehsildar, and Ors., Misc. Single No. 23446 of 2019.

8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide order dated

28.02.2020 passed in District Bar Association, Deharadun through its Secretary Vs. Ishwar Shandilya & Ors, Special Leave petition (Civil ) No. 5440 of 2020, has held as under:- "35. In conclusion, it is held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even on a token strike. ........................ It is held that lawyers holding vakalatnamas on behalf of their clients cannot refuse to attend courts in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott. All lawyers must boldly refuse to abide by any call for strike or boycott. No lawyer can be visited with any adverse consequences by the Association or the Council and no threat or coercion of any nature including that of expulsion can be held out. It is held that no Bar Council or Bar Association can permit calling of a meeting for purposes of considering a call for strike or boycott and requisition, if any, for such meeting must be ignored. It is held that only in the rarest of rare cases where the dignity, integrity and independence of the Bar and/or the Bench are at 4 A227 No. 4868 of 2025 stake, courts may ignore (turn a blind eye) to a protest, abstention from work for not more than one day. It is being clarified that it will be for the court to decide whether or not the issue involves dignity or integrity or independence of the Bar and/or the Bench"

9. In the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel for petitioner is directed to implead the President and the General Secretary of the Rudauli Bar Association, Tehsil Rudauli, District Ayodhya as respondent No.s 3 and 4 in the memo of the petition. The aforesaid impleadment shall be carried out during the course of the day.

10. In view of the above, professional misconduct of aforesaid lawyers/office bearers may also amount to contempt of court.

11. Accordingly, issue notice to newly added respondent No.s 3 and 4 to show cause through counsel as to why appropriate proceedings should not be initiated against them for frequently calling for strikes of the bar association due to which the judicial work of the revenue courts is affected which is amount to willful disobedience of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Ex- Capt. Harish Uppal (Supra), Hussain (Supra), District Bar Association Dehradun (Supra) as well as direction of the Court in Writ Petition N. 20263 (MS) of 2021.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall take steps within one week.

13. List this case on 2.9.2025 on which date the newly impleaded opposite parties shall appear in person before this Court along with personal affidavit explaining the call for boycott on regular 5 A227 No. 4868 of 2025 basis due to which adjudication of revenue disputes in Tehsil Rudauli, District Ayodhya has come to a grinding halt and why appropriate action be not taken against them for creating such sorry state of affairs which is the direct result of their conduct."

4. Today, Shri Avadh Rai Yadav, the President and Shri Devi Dayal Mishra, the Secretary of the Bar Association, Bikapur, Ayodhya appeared in person before this Court. They have also filed affidavits.

5. It has been submitted that the present office bearers have been elected only in August, 2025 and they have undertaken not to proceed to give call for boycott.

6. Accordingly, undertaking is accepted.

7. The President and the Secretary are cautioned not to resort strikes which have virtually paralized the working of the revenue courts due to which even the orders passed for expediting the proceedings cannot be complied and poor villagers have to approach this Court frequently for simply expediting the proceedings pending before the authorities.

8. This order shall be placed at the consequent portion of the Bar Association, so that it comes to knowledge of all the members of the Bar Association and this order will bind even in subsequent persons, who are elected as office bearers of Rudauli Bar Association. Any violation of this order will be treated as a contempt and appropriate action shall be taken by this Court. In case, it comes in the knowledge that the working of the revenue courts is getting paralized due to call for resolution of the Boycott.

9. Accordingly, in the aforesaid directions the notices issued to the opposite parties no. 3 and 4 are discharged. Order on Petition

1. Heard Sri Ved Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Sri Yogesh Awasthi, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent No. 1.

2. In light of the proposed order to be passed, notices to respondent No. 2 6 A227 No. 4868 of 2025 is dispensed with.

3. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector First Class, Pargana - Tahsil - Rudauli, District - Ayodhya be directed to decide the Case No.1587 of 2024 Case bearing No.T202404230701587, (Gaon Sabha vs. Riyaz), under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, Village Kudha Sadat, Pargana Tahsil Rudauli, District Ayodhya, expeditiously.

4. Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition in the nature of mandamus for a direction to the authority to decide the same matter expeditiously would not be maintainable at the behest of the petitioner who is only a complainant. It has further been stated that it is on the complaint of the petitioner, cognizance have been taken and proceedings U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are underway.

5. It is on the complaint of the petitioner that the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code were initiated. It is on the complaint of the petitioner that notice were issued and the proceedings are underway against the opposite party no.2.

6. Accordingly, this Court finds substance in the objections raised by learned Standing Counsel in as much as the status of the petitioner is of only a complainant and he cannot prosecute the said case as an interested party. Undoubtedly in case the petitioner is aggrieved then it was open for him to move appropriate proceedings for eviction of the private respondents instead he has sought to move State machinery by filing a petition U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code. Once an application U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code is filed then it was upon the competent authority to consider and decide the same and pass appropriate orders where the petitioner as a complainant has no role to play.

7. Needless to say the authorities are competent to protect the government land and will take all steps for the necessary compliance of the same.

8. In this regard, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs Collector reported in (2012) 4 SCC 407 with regard to locus of a complainant has held as under:- "58. Shri Chintaman Raghunath Gharat, Ex- 7 A227 No. 4868 of 2025 President was the complainant, thus, at the most, he could lead the evidence as a witness. He could not claim the status of an adversial litigant. The complainant cannot be the party to the lies. A legal right is an averment of entitlement arising out of law. In fact, it is a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. Thus, a person who suffers from legal injury can only challenge the act or omission. There may be some harm or loss that may not be wrongful in the eyes of law because it may not result in injury to a legal right or legally protected interest of the complainant but juridically harm of this description is called damnum sine injuria

59. The complainant has to establish that he has been deprived of or denied of a legal right and he has sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In case he has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on, he cannot be heard as a party in a lies. A fanciful or sentimental grievance may not be sufficient to confer a locus stand to sue upon the individual. There must be injuria or a legal grievance which can be appreciated and not a stat pro rationed valuntas reasons

60. Under the garb of being necessary party, a person cannot be permitted to make a case as that of general public interest. A person having a remote interest cannot be permitted to become a party in the lies, as the person wants to become a party in a case, has to establish that he has a proprietary right which has been or is threatened to be violated, for the reason that a legal injury creates a remedial right in the injured person. A person cannot be heard as a party unless he answers the description of aggrieved party."

9. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dharam Raj Vs. State 8 A227 No. 4868 of 2025 of U.P and Ors reported in (2010) 2 AWC 1878 (All) with respect to the locus of complainant has held has under:- "9. As evident from narration of the facts given above, it is evident that the petitioner was one of the complainants in the complaint against the respondent No. 4 on 12.3.2008. The action has since been taken on the complaint so made by the petitioner and others against the respondent No. 4, and fine of Rs. 5,000 has been imposed.

10. In the circumstances, the petitioner cannot have any grievance in the matter, and he is not an aggrieved person rather he is a person annoyed,

11. In the case of R. v. London Country Keepers of the Peace of Justice, (1890) 25 QBD 357, the Court has held: "A person who cannot succeed in getting a conviction against another may be annoyed by the said findings. He may also feel that what he thought to be a breach of law was wrongly held to be not a breach of law by the Magistrate. He thus may be said to be a person annoyed but not a person aggrieved, entitle to prefer an appeal against such order.

12. 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.

13. 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 9 A227 No. 4868 of 2025 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 etc. v. Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi and Ors. AIR 1999 SC 943 and Laxminarayan R. Bhattad and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2003) 5 SCC 413].

14. 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 v. Home Insurance Co. of New York AIR 1974 SC 1719 and State of Rajasthan v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1977 SC 1361).

15. In Jasbhai Motibhai Desat v. Roshan Kumar Hazi Bashir Ahmad and Ors.: AIR 1976 SC 578, 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 town contending 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 10 A227 No. 4868 of 2025 this description is called damnum sine 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 hang on. Therefore, he is not a "person aggrieved" to challenge the ground of the no objection certificate." In Northern Plastics Ltd. v. Hindustan Photo Films Mfg Co. Ltd. Ors. MANU/SC/1151/1997MANU/SC/1151/1997 : (1997) 4 SCC 452, 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.

16. The view taken by us that the petitioner is not a person aggrieved, thus he has no locus standi to file the present writ petition thereby challenging the order dated 16.3.2009 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jaisinghpur, district Sultanpur is also supported by the decision of this Court in the case of Suresh Singh v. Commissioner Moradabad Division 1993 (1) AWC 601, where it was held that in an inquiry under Section 95(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, the complainant who was Up-Pradhan could be a witness in. an inquiry but had 11 A227 No. 4868 of 2025 no locus standi to approach this Court against the order of the State authorities, for the reasons that none of his personal statutory right are affected.

17. As such 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. From a perusal of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (supra) as well as the Division Bench judgment in the case of Dharam Raj (supra) it clearly comes out that for a person to prefer the petition, he has to establish that he has been deprived of or denied of a legal right and he has sustained injury to any legally protected interest. Thus in order to prefer a writ, the person entitled would be one who has either been wrongly deprived of his entitlement which he is legally entitled to receive and it does not include any kind of disappointment or personal inconvenience. It is settled proposition of law that the person who suffers from legal injury only can challenge the act or action or order by filing a writ petition inasmuch as the writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is maintainable for enforcing a statutory or legal right or when there is a complaint by ....the petitioner that there is breach of statutory duty on the part of authorities. Thus, there must be a judicially enforceable right for the enforcement of which the writ jurisdiction can be resorted to and not for the purpose of settlement of a personal grievance.

11. The petitioner on the other hand has failed to indicate as to how he is concerned with the said land inasmuch as none of his rights are affected and from the perusal of the affidavit it is clear that no right or interest is vested upon the petitioner is adversely affected and therefore he is not a person "aggrieved" so as to entertain this petition under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India.

12. Considering the aforesaid, I do not find that the petitioner has a locus to maintain the present petition and consequently the petition at the behest of the petitioner is not maintainable, accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 12 A227 No. 4868 of 2025

13. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds that present writ petition at the behest of the petitioner would not be maintainable, accordingly, the same is dismissed. September 11, 2025 KR (Alok Mathur,J.) RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

6. Prima facie, the proceedings could not take place due to strikes of the bar association and hence the case could not proceed in accordance with law.

7. It is submitted that frequent call of strikes by the bar association in gross violation of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India and another reported in 2003 (2) SCC 45 and Hussain and another Vs. Union of India reported in 2017 (5) SCC 702 as well as of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs. Naib Tehsildar, and Ors., Misc. Single No. 23446 of 2019.

8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide order dated

28.02.2020 passed in District Bar Association, Deharadun through its Secretary Vs. Ishwar Shandilya & Ors, Special Leave petition (Civil ) No. 5440 of 2020, has held as under:- "35. In conclusion, it is held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even on a token strike. ........................ It is held that lawyers holding vakalatnamas on behalf of their clients cannot refuse to attend courts in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott. All lawyers must boldly refuse to abide by any call for strike or boycott. No lawyer can be visited with any adverse consequences by the Association or the Council and no threat or coercion of any nature including that of expulsion can be held out. It is held that no Bar Council or Bar Association can permit calling of a meeting for purposes of considering a call for strike or boycott and requisition, if any, for such meeting must be ignored. It is held that only in the rarest of rare cases where the dignity, integrity and independence of the Bar and/or the Bench are at 4 A227 No. 4868 of 2025 stake, courts may ignore (turn a blind eye) to a protest, abstention from work for not more than one day. It is being clarified that it will be for the court to decide whether or not the issue involves dignity or integrity or independence of the Bar and/or the Bench"

9. In the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel for petitioner is directed to implead the President and the General Secretary of the Rudauli Bar Association, Tehsil Rudauli, District Ayodhya as respondent No.s 3 and 4 in the memo of the petition. The aforesaid impleadment shall be carried out during the course of the day.

10. In view of the above, professional misconduct of aforesaid lawyers/office bearers may also amount to contempt of court.

11. Accordingly, issue notice to newly added respondent No.s 3 and 4 to show cause through counsel as to why appropriate proceedings should not be initiated against them for frequently calling for strikes of the bar association due to which the judicial work of the revenue courts is affected which is amount to willful disobedience of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Ex- Capt. Harish Uppal (Supra), Hussain (Supra), District Bar Association Dehradun (Supra) as well as direction of the Court in Writ Petition N. 20263 (MS) of 2021.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall take steps within one week.

13. List this case on 2.9.2025 on which date the newly impleaded opposite parties shall appear in person before this Court along with personal affidavit explaining the call for boycott on regular 5 A227 No. 4868 of 2025 basis due to which adjudication of revenue disputes in Tehsil Rudauli, District Ayodhya has come to a grinding halt and why appropriate action be not taken against them for creating such sorry state of affairs which is the direct result of their conduct."

4. Today, Shri Avadh Rai Yadav, the President and Shri Devi Dayal Mishra, the Secretary of the Bar Association, Bikapur, Ayodhya appeared in person before this Court. They have also filed affidavits.

5. It has been submitted that the present office bearers have been elected only in August, 2025 and they have undertaken not to proceed to give call for boycott.

6. Accordingly, undertaking is accepted.

7. The President and the Secretary are cautioned not to resort strikes which have virtually paralized the working of the revenue courts due to which even the orders passed for expediting the proceedings cannot be complied and poor villagers have to approach this Court frequently for simply expediting the proceedings pending before the authorities.

8. This order shall be placed at the consequent portion of the Bar Association, so that it comes to knowledge of all the members of the Bar Association and this order will bind even in subsequent persons, who are elected as office bearers of Rudauli Bar Association. Any violation of this order will be treated as a contempt and appropriate action shall be taken by this Court. In case, it comes in the knowledge that the working of the revenue courts is getting paralized due to call for resolution of the Boycott.

9. Accordingly, in the aforesaid directions the notices issued to the opposite parties no. 3 and 4 are discharged. Order on Petition

1. Heard Sri Ved Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Sri Yogesh Awasthi, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent No. 1.

2. In light of the proposed order to be passed, notices to respondent No. 2 6 A227 No. 4868 of 2025 is dispensed with.

3. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector First Class, Pargana - Tahsil - Rudauli, District - Ayodhya be directed to decide the Case No.1587 of 2024 Case bearing No.T202404230701587, (Gaon Sabha vs. Riyaz), under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, Village Kudha Sadat, Pargana Tahsil Rudauli, District Ayodhya, expeditiously.

4. Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition in the nature of mandamus for a direction to the authority to decide the same matter expeditiously would not be maintainable at the behest of the petitioner who is only a complainant. It has further been stated that it is on the complaint of the petitioner, cognizance have been taken and proceedings U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are underway.

5. It is on the complaint of the petitioner that the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code were initiated. It is on the complaint of the petitioner that notice were issued and the proceedings are underway against the opposite party no.2.

6. Accordingly, this Court finds substance in the objections raised by learned Standing Counsel in as much as the status of the petitioner is of only a complainant and he cannot prosecute the said case as an interested party. Undoubtedly in case the petitioner is aggrieved then it was open for him to move appropriate proceedings for eviction of the private respondents instead he has sought to move State machinery by filing a petition U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code. Once an application U/S 67 of U.P. Revenue Code is filed then it was upon the competent authority to consider and decide the same and pass appropriate orders where the petitioner as a complainant has no role to play.

7. Needless to say the authorities are competent to protect the government land and will take all steps for the necessary compliance of the same.

8. In this regard, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs Collector reported in (2012) 4 SCC 407 with regard to locus of a complainant has held as under:- "58. Shri Chintaman Raghunath Gharat, Ex- 7 A227 No. 4868 of 2025 President was the complainant, thus, at the most, he could lead the evidence as a witness. He could not claim the status of an adversial litigant. The complainant cannot be the party to the lies. A legal right is an averment of entitlement arising out of law. In fact, it is a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. Thus, a person who suffers from legal injury can only challenge the act or omission. There may be some harm or loss that may not be wrongful in the eyes of law because it may not result in injury to a legal right or legally protected interest of the complainant but juridically harm of this description is called damnum sine injuria

59. The complainant has to establish that he has been deprived of or denied of a legal right and he has sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In case he has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on, he cannot be heard as a party in a lies. A fanciful or sentimental grievance may not be sufficient to confer a locus stand to sue upon the individual. There must be injuria or a legal grievance which can be appreciated and not a stat pro rationed valuntas reasons

60. Under the garb of being necessary party, a person cannot be permitted to make a case as that of general public interest. A person having a remote interest cannot be permitted to become a party in the lies, as the person wants to become a party in a case, has to establish that he has a proprietary right which has been or is threatened to be violated, for the reason that a legal injury creates a remedial right in the injured person. A person cannot be heard as a party unless he answers the description of aggrieved party."

9. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dharam Raj Vs. State 8 A227 No. 4868 of 2025 of U.P and Ors reported in (2010) 2 AWC 1878 (All) with respect to the locus of complainant has held has under:- "9. As evident from narration of the facts given above, it is evident that the petitioner was one of the complainants in the complaint against the respondent No. 4 on 12.3.2008. The action has since been taken on the complaint so made by the petitioner and others against the respondent No. 4, and fine of Rs. 5,000 has been imposed.

10. In the circumstances, the petitioner cannot have any grievance in the matter, and he is not an aggrieved person rather he is a person annoyed,

11. In the case of R. v. London Country Keepers of the Peace of Justice, (1890) 25 QBD 357, the Court has held: "A person who cannot succeed in getting a conviction against another may be annoyed by the said findings. He may also feel that what he thought to be a breach of law was wrongly held to be not a breach of law by the Magistrate. He thus may be said to be a person annoyed but not a person aggrieved, entitle to prefer an appeal against such order.

12. 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.

13. 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 9 A227 No. 4868 of 2025 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 etc. v. Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi and Ors. AIR 1999 SC 943 and Laxminarayan R. Bhattad and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2003) 5 SCC 413].

14. 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 v. Home Insurance Co. of New York AIR 1974 SC 1719 and State of Rajasthan v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1977 SC 1361).

15. In Jasbhai Motibhai Desat v. Roshan Kumar Hazi Bashir Ahmad and Ors.: AIR 1976 SC 578, 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 town contending 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 10 A227 No. 4868 of 2025 this description is called damnum sine 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 hang on. Therefore, he is not a "person aggrieved" to challenge the ground of the no objection certificate." In Northern Plastics Ltd. v. Hindustan Photo Films Mfg Co. Ltd. Ors. MANU/SC/1151/1997MANU/SC/1151/1997 : (1997) 4 SCC 452, 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.

16. The view taken by us that the petitioner is not a person aggrieved, thus he has no locus standi to file the present writ petition thereby challenging the order dated 16.3.2009 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jaisinghpur, district Sultanpur is also supported by the decision of this Court in the case of Suresh Singh v. Commissioner Moradabad Division 1993 (1) AWC 601, where it was held that in an inquiry under Section 95(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, the complainant who was Up-Pradhan could be a witness in. an inquiry but had 11 A227 No. 4868 of 2025 no locus standi to approach this Court against the order of the State authorities, for the reasons that none of his personal statutory right are affected.

17. As such 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. From a perusal of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (supra) as well as the Division Bench judgment in the case of Dharam Raj (supra) it clearly comes out that for a person to prefer the petition, he has to establish that he has been deprived of or denied of a legal right and he has sustained injury to any legally protected interest. Thus in order to prefer a writ, the person entitled would be one who has either been wrongly deprived of his entitlement which he is legally entitled to receive and it does not include any kind of disappointment or personal inconvenience. It is settled proposition of law that the person who suffers from legal injury only can challenge the act or action or order by filing a writ petition inasmuch as the writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is maintainable for enforcing a statutory or legal right or when there is a complaint by ....the petitioner that there is breach of statutory duty on the part of authorities. Thus, there must be a judicially enforceable right for the enforcement of which the writ jurisdiction can be resorted to and not for the purpose of settlement of a personal grievance.

11. The petitioner on the other hand has failed to indicate as to how he is concerned with the said land inasmuch as none of his rights are affected and from the perusal of the affidavit it is clear that no right or interest is vested upon the petitioner is adversely affected and therefore he is not a person "aggrieved" so as to entertain this petition under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India.

12. Considering the aforesaid, I do not find that the petitioner has a locus to maintain the present petition and consequently the petition at the behest of the petitioner is not maintainable, accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 12 A227 No. 4868 of 2025

13. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds that present writ petition at the behest of the petitioner would not be maintainable, accordingly, the same is dismissed. September 11, 2025 KR (Alok Mathur,J.) RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench