?.- ^ ^T..;?-- .-....-.^^^ ^^ "'i'l\^ ^^°UBat" .<s..->"»'* . F' ^hrp-fv^ M^'wf^ Wi^^- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Sl N0. QF 2010 (S.B.l PETITIONER RESPONDENTS :-^ H.S. Dhruv S/o Late Shri Phool Singh Dhruv, aged about 45 years, Occupation - Service, posted at ' Jagdalpur as Sub Engineer, Irrigation Department, R/o H-11, irrigation Mandi colony, Jagdalpur (C.G.) VERSUS :-^1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). ^2. Engineer in-chief, Water Resource Department, Sihava Bhavan, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) ^ 3. Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department, Mahanadi Reservoir Project (M.R.P.),. Shankar Nagar, Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) ^ 4. Executive Engineer, E/M Heavy Earth Moving Machinery MRP Division, Rydri, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ^ 5. Sub Divisional Officer (In-charge of Office E/M OF&M) Water Resource, sub Division/Jagdalpur (C.G.) / 6. Sub Engineer, in the office of E/M OF&M Water Resource, sub Division, Jagdalpur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 ff»igx?|»»»^^^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.1803 OF2010 PETITIONER H.S.Dhruv RESPONDENTS Versus StateofChhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- ShriAmiyakant Tiwari, Advocatefor the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State; 1. 2. 3. 4. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 21st dayofApril, 2010) Grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No.6 who is a non-gazetted officer h,as been given the drawing and disbursing power. The petitioner is also non-gazetted officer, but he does not claim any relief. However, the petitioner is aggrieved by grant of power to the respondent No.6 for drawing and disbursing. Thequestion in thispetition is astowhether the petitioner has any locus to prefer this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to quash the order passed ih respect of respondent No. 6. It is well settled that a writ is maintainableonly at the instance of the aggrieved person/party. Law is clear on the above point that no relief can be granted to a person who is not personally aggrieved by anorder orany action.It is well settled that person approaching this Court must be 'aggrieved person'. The writ petition at the instance of third party is not maintainable except in case of public interestlitigation petition, habeas corpus orquowarranto. The Supreme Court, in D. A/agara/ & Others v. State ofKarnataka & Others1, observed as under: 1 (1977)28cc 148 "7. The sole question that requires to be determined in these appeals is whether the appellants could maintain the aforesaid writ petitions. It does not describe the classes of persons entitled to apply thereunder, the existence of the right is implicit for the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction by the High Court under the said Article. It is also well established that a person who is not aggrieved by the discrimination complained of cannot maintain a writ petition." Further, in Vinoy Kumar v. State of U.P. & Others , the Supreme Court observed as under: "2. Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The exception to the general rule is only in cases where a writ applied for is a writ of habeas corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest. It is a matter of prudence, that the court confines the exercise of writ jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or legal injuries are caused to a particular person or his fundamental rights are violated, and not to entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the instance of third party where there is an effective legal aid organisation which can take care of such cases." The petitioner seeks a roving enquiry on the basis of certain allegations which cannot be granted in a writ jurisdiction. It is for the authorities to consider the complaint of the petitioner and if so warrants, the respondent authorities may take appropriate steps. (2001)43cc734 7. The Supreme Court, in DharampurSugar (Kashipur) Ltd. v. State of Uttaranchal & Others , observed as under: "83. It is, therefore, necessary for the person making such allegations to supply full particulars in the petition. If sufficient averments and requisite materials are not on record, the court would not make "fishing" or roving enquiry" 8. Further, in Kurapati Mariadas v. Dr. Ambedkar Sewa Samajan & Others4, the Supreme Court observed as under: "It seems that in this case, the High Court has gone out of its way, firstly in relying on the xerox copies of the service record of the appellants and then at the appellate stage, in calling the files of the Electricity Board where the appellant was working. This amounted to a roving enquiry into the caste of the appellant which was certainly not permissible in writjurisdiction." 9. Applying the well-settled principles of law as aforestated to the facts of the case wherein the petitioner is not personally aggrieved on account of passing of order in respect of respondent No. 6, the petition is bereft of merit and is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. Gowri ^- .. ^ SaUshK.Agnibom Judge 3 (2007)88cc 418 4 (2009) 7 SCC 387