- (1.) The petitioner who is a complainant is assailing the impugned order dated 31 July 2015 passed by the second respondent, Additional Commissioner Moradabad Division Moradabad, whereby, the fair price shop license of the fourth respondent has been restored. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the fourth respondent has committed irregularities in distributing the essential commodities to the villagers, therefore, order passed by the appellate authority is erroneous and bad.
(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Standing Counsel regarding the maintainability of the 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 . The petitioner admittedly is a complainant in the present case, hence would not be an aggrieved person.
(3.) 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 ;