- (1.) The petitioner who is a complainant is assailing the impugned order dated 16.07.2015 passed by the second respondent, Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Aligarh Mandal, Aligarh, whereby, the fair price shop license of the ninth respondent has been restored. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the ninth respondent has committed irregularities in distributing the essential commodities to the villagers, therefore, order passed by the appellate authority is erroneous and bad. 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 .
(2.) 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 . 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
(3.) The expression 'person aggrieved' means a person who has suffered a legal grievance i.e a person against whom a decision has been pronounced which has lawfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something. The petitioner is not an aggrieved person by merely filing a complaint. The order of revocation of cancellation of fair price shop license do not affect him in any manner. The Division Bench in Dharam Raj Versus State of U.P. and others, 2010 2 AWC 1878 , held that the petition on behalf of the complainant against the licensee of fair price shop is not maintainable against the final order passed by the competent authority as the complainant cannot be said to have any grievance in the matter being not an aggrieved person rather is a 'person annoyed'. Recently Supreme Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir versus District Collector, Raigad and others, 2012 4 SCC 407 was dealing with the removal of the President of Uran Municipal Council under the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965. The ex-President was the complainant, the Court was of the opinion that the complainant cannot be party to the lis as he could not claim the status of an adversarial litigant. The relevant extract is as follows: "58. Shri Chintaman Raghunath Gharat, Ex-President was the complainant, thus, at the most, he could lead the evidence as a witness. He could not claim the status of an adversial litigant. The complainant cannot be the party to the lis. A legal right is an averment of entitlement arising out of law. In fact, it is a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. Thus, a person whosuffers from legal injury can only challenge the act or omission. There may be some harm or loss that may not be wrongful in the eyes of law because it may not result in injury to a legal right or legally protected interest of the complainant but juridically harm of this description is called damnum sine injuria. 59.The complainant has to establish that he has been deprived of or denied of a legal right and he has sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In case he has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on, he cannot be heard as a party in a lis. A fanciful or sentimental grievance may not be sufficient to confer a locus standi to sue upon the individual. There must be injuria or a legal grievance which can be appreciated and not a stat pro ratione valuntas reasons i.e. a claim devoid of reasons. 60. Under the garb of being necessary party, a person cannot be permitted to make a case as that of general public interest. A person having a remote interest cannot be permitted to become a party in the lis, as the person wants to become a party in a case, has to establish that he has a proprietary right which has been or is threatened to be violated, for the reason that a legal injury creates a remedial right in the injured person. A person cannot be heard as a party unless he answers the description of aggrieved party. Adi Pherozshah Gandhi v. H.M. Seervai, Advocate General of Maharashtra, 1971 AIR(SC) 385 ; Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors., 1976 AIR(SC) 578 ; Maharaj Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 1976 AIR(SC) 2602 ; Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal & Ors., 2002 1 SCC 33 ; and Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tosiba Appliances Company & Ors., 2008 10 SCC 766 . The High Court failed to appreciate that it was a case of political rivalry. The case of the appellant has not been considered in correct perspective at all.";