- (1.) Heard Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Sudhanshu Pandey holding brief of Sri Radhey Shyam, learned counsel for the fifth respondent. The petitioner is a sitting Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Noorabad Airwa Katra, District Auraiya, who is also a complainant. On the complaint of the petitioner, license of fair price shop of the fifth respondent Savitri Devi was cancelled. Petitioner has approached this Court assailing the order dated 3 September 2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur restoring the fair price shop license of the fifth respondent and the order dated 2 September 2015 rejecting the review application of the petitioner.
(2.) Learned standing counsel and learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent would submit that the petitioner has no locus being 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. 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. (Refer-Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V.Dabholkar, 1975 2 SCC 702 , 710-11, paras 27 & 28). 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 ,49 para 10);