Adversarial Litigation In Service Matters At Instance Of A Stranger/ Busy Body Not Permitted: Allahabad HC Imposes ₹20K Cost

A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed thus while imposing a cost of Rs. 20,000/- on a petitioner to discourage his conduct of filing a writ petition challenging the appointment of a Shiksha Mitra, his relative (respondent No. 4) on the ground that the appointment was illegally appointed and that he had embezzled money.

Noting that the petitioner has no locus standi to assail the appointment of respondent No. 4 and is a busybody who simply wants to harass him, the Court termed the writ petition an abuse of the court's process.

“The petitioners were required to satisfy that they are an 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,” the single judge remarked.

In this regard, the High Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in the 2013 case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, wherein it was held that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding unless he satisfies the authority/court that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons

The Single judge also referred to the Supreme Court's 2003 judgment in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, in which it was observed that in service matters, PILs should not be entertained, and whenever such frivolous pleas are filed, the courts should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs.

Against the backdrop of the top court's rulings, the Court, while dismissing the plea, directed the Firozabad DM to recover Rs. 20K from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue within a period of two months.

Case title - Mirza Iqrar Beg vs. State Of Up And 3 Others

Case citation:

Click here To Read/Download Order