Allahabad High Court
WRIC/17627/2026 of ROHIT KUMAR Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS on 5 May 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 17627 of 2026 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has prayed for
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17627 of 2026
Court No. - 40
HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
2
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has prayed for the following reliefs: "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 09.02.2026 within a period as may be specified by this Hon'ble Court.
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authority to remove the Madaha of the respondent no.4 which was illegally made by him in the arazi no.126 which is registered as a N.Z.A. Chakroad in the revenue record.
iii. Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
iv. Award the cost of this writ petition to the petitioner."
3. The petitioner is only a complainant and not an aggrieved person. The settled law is that a writ petition can be maintained only by a person whose legal rights have been infringed. A stranger or a mere complainant, who is not directly affected, has no locus to challenge such an order.
4. In Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors., (1976) 1 SCC 671, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a person who is not an aggrieved party cannot maintain a writ petition unless he Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rakesh Chandra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Rohit Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)
demonstrates infringement of a legally enforceable right. The principle has been reiterated in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2013) 4 SCC 465, wherein it was held that only a person who suffers a legal injury can invoke the writ jurisdiction.
5. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of this Court in Smt. Anita Kumari v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2021 (5) ADJ 470, wherein this Court has held that "a stranger to the proceedings, who is not affected directly or whose legal rights are not infringed, cannot maintain a writ petition merely on the basis of being a complainant."
6. In the present case, the petitioner is a complainant and he has no enforceable right to challenge the construction of Madaha of respondent no.4 over the Arazi No.126 as none of his rights are prejudiced.
7. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. May 6, 2026 Sattyarth WRIC No. 17627 of 2026 2 (Garima Prashad,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SATTYARTH ANAND High Court of Judicature at Allahabad