ROHIT KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                         WRIT - C No. - 17627 of 2026

Rohit Kumar
                                                                      .....Petitioner(s)
                                        Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                                    .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                               :    Rakesh Chandra
Counsel for Respondent(s)                               :    C.S.C.

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 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
                                                                                             WRIC No. 17627 of 2026
                                                                    2

                                    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
                                                                   (Garima Prashad,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SATTYARTH ANAND
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad