- (1.) The fifth respondent is licensee of fair price shop but her license was cancelled by the order dated 18 May 2009. Aggrieved, she preferred a petition being Writ - C No.33881 of 2009, Smt. Vitan vs. State of U.P. & others. This Court by the order dated 4 July 2014 allowed the petition setting aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the authorities concerned to re-consider the entire matter and decide afresh. Pursuant thereof, the Sub Divisional Magistrate by the order dated 18 November 2014 restored the license of the fair price shop in respect of 5th respondent. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad which was rejected being not maintainable by the order dated 25 February 2015. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the aforementioned orders under Article 226 of the constitution. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has participated in the process of allotment of the fair price shop, the candidature of the petitioner was wrongly rejected and fifth respondent being ineligible as per Government Order was wrongly granted license.
(2.) In rebuttal, Sri Verma, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent and learned standing counsel would submit that the petitioner is not eligible as the license was to be granted to a lady candidate belonging to the scheduled caste community which condition the fifth respondent fulfils, accordingly, the petitioner is not an aggrieved person at the best a complainant. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Standing Counsel regarding the maintainability of the writ petition at the behest of the complainant against the final order passed in appeal. Reliance has been placed on Dharam Raj Versus State of U.P. and others, 2010 2 AWC 1878 , Ram Baran Versus State of U.P. and others, 2010 2 AWC 1947 and Amin Khan Versus State of U.P. and others, 2008 4 ADJ 559 .
(3.) The petitioner admittedly is a complainant in the present case, hence would not be an aggrieved person, further petitioner does not fulfil the eligibility condition for allotment, the license was reserved for scheduled caste female candidate. The meaning of the expression 'person aggrieved' will have to be ascertained with reference to the purpose and the provisions of the statute. One of the meanings is that person will be held to be aggrieved by a decision if that decision is materially adverse to him. The restricted meaning of the expression requires denial or deprivation of legal rights. A more legal approach is required in the background of statutes which do not deal with the property rights but deal with professional misconduct and morality. Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V.Dabholkar, 1975 2 SCC 702 . Broadly, speaking a party or a person is aggrieved by a decision when, it only operates directly and injuriously upon his personal, pecuniary and proprietary rights (Corpus Juris Seundem. Edn. 1, Vol.IV, p.356, as referred in Kalva Sudhakar Reddy v.Mandala Sudhakar Reddy, 2005 AIR(AP) 45 ;