IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13684 of 2009 1. PRAHALAD MAHTO S/O LATE JAIMANGAL MAHTO VILL- PANCHHOR TOLA UPHRAULIA, P.O- VARAHI, P.S- RIGA DISTT- SITAMARHI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT IN PATNA (BIHAR) 2. MIRA DEVI W/O SRI UMESH MAHTO VILL- PANCHCHOR TOLA UPHRAULIA, P.S- BLOCK- RIGA DISTT- SITAMARHI BIHAR --------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Dilip Kumar Mishra. For the State :- M/S. Ramchandra Prasad Bharti, S.C. XIV Ajay Kumar & Sadanand Paswan, A.C. to S.C. XIV ------- 2 03/11/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to challenge paragraph 3 of a policy decision of the respondents authorities which has been published as ‘guidelines 2006’ by the authorities of UNICEF relating to integrated child development project under which Angan Bari Sevikas and Sahayikas are to be selected. There is no averment in the writ petition nor any attempt was made to satisfy this Court at the Bar that the writ petitioner has any special interest in the matter and any of his rights and interests have been adversely affected or are going to be adversely affected. The only plea on the issue of locus standi is a general submission that every citizen can come to this Court to challenge any law or any policy decision. The judgment relied in this regard is the judgment of the apex Court in the case of D.C. Wadhwa (Dr.) Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1987) 1 SCC, 378. That was a case in which the court had permitted Dr. Wadhwa to raise the relevant matter in public interest. - 2 - In this case the petitioner has admittedly moved this Court through a regular writ petition not claiming that it is public interest. Otherwise also challenge to certain paragraphs of a policy decision, in our view, can be made only if such provisions affect the legal rights of any person. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has failed to show any locus standi for challenging the provisions of the aforesaid policy decision. (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) AMIN