The Allahabad High Court has dismsissed a petition observing the law laid down by the constitutional courts does not permit initiation of adversarial litigation in service matters at the instance of a stranger or a busybody.
A Single Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Mirza Iqrar Beg.
The petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent no 4 who was working as Shiksha Mitra. The petitioner is brother-in-law of respondent no 4. The petitioner claims that the respondent no 4 was illegally appointed and that he had embezzled money.
The petitioner has no locus standi to assail the appointment of respondent No 4. The petitioner is a busybody who simply wants to harass the respondent No 4. The writ petition is an abuse of the process of the court.
Further it is settled law that public interest litigation is not maintainable in service matters.
The Court noted that,
The existence of a right in favour of an aggrieved party furnishes the locus standi to maintain a writ petition as held in Vinoy Kumar Vs State of UP and others.
Similarly in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs State of Maharashtra and others, the Supreme Court emphasized that existence of enforceable rights of aggrieved parties form the precondition to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
“The law laid down by the Constitutional Courts does not permit initiation of adversarial litigation in service matters at the instance of a stranger or a busybody. The petitioners were required to satisfy that they are aggrieved parties. The petitioners have failed to do so. The nature of legal rights sought to be enforced do not bring them in the definition of a person aggrieved. The petitioners do not have the locus standi to maintain the writ petition. Further the petitioner cannot canvass any public interest in this writ petition, in light of the restrictions imposed by judicial authorities discussed earlier,” the Court observed while dismissing the petition.
“In this wake, a cost of Rs 20,000 is imposed upon the petitioner to discourage his conduct. The District Magistrate, Firozabad shall recover the said amount from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue within a period of two months and submit a report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad shall ensure that the costs are recovered and paid to respondent No 4 for the harassment which has been caused,” the Court ordered.
The post appeared first on .
A Single Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Mirza Iqrar Beg.
The petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent no 4 who was working as Shiksha Mitra. The petitioner is brother-in-law of respondent no 4. The petitioner claims that the respondent no 4 was illegally appointed and that he had embezzled money.
The petitioner has no locus standi to assail the appointment of respondent No 4. The petitioner is a busybody who simply wants to harass the respondent No 4. The writ petition is an abuse of the process of the court.
Further it is settled law that public interest litigation is not maintainable in service matters.
The Court noted that,
The existence of a right in favour of an aggrieved party furnishes the locus standi to maintain a writ petition as held in Vinoy Kumar Vs State of UP and others.
Similarly in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs State of Maharashtra and others, the Supreme Court emphasized that existence of enforceable rights of aggrieved parties form the precondition to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
“The law laid down by the Constitutional Courts does not permit initiation of adversarial litigation in service matters at the instance of a stranger or a busybody. The petitioners were required to satisfy that they are aggrieved parties. The petitioners have failed to do so. The nature of legal rights sought to be enforced do not bring them in the definition of a person aggrieved. The petitioners do not have the locus standi to maintain the writ petition. Further the petitioner cannot canvass any public interest in this writ petition, in light of the restrictions imposed by judicial authorities discussed earlier,” the Court observed while dismissing the petition.
“In this wake, a cost of Rs 20,000 is imposed upon the petitioner to discourage his conduct. The District Magistrate, Firozabad shall recover the said amount from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue within a period of two months and submit a report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad shall ensure that the costs are recovered and paid to respondent No 4 for the harassment which has been caused,” the Court ordered.
The post appeared first on .