Anant Kumar, J. - (1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed with the following prayers: (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13.10.2017 passed by Deputy Commissioner (Food) Faizabad Division, Faiabad (O.P. No.2) in Appeal No.70/2017/Ambedkar Nagar (Ramu Lal Vs State of U.P.) as contained in Annexure No.1 t this writ petition. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the O.P. No.3 for stopping the supply of Essential Commodities to O.P. No.4 in pursuance to the impugned order dated 14.10.2017 passed by Deputy Commissioner (Food) Faizabad Division, Faiazabad. (iii) any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the circumstances of the case. (vi) to allow the writ petition with cost.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Manish Mani Sharma, learned counsel for caviator and learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record. The parties are agreeable that the matter may be disposed of finally at the admission stage.
(3.) At the very outset, learned counsel for caviator has raised an objection to the effect that the petitioner was a complainant before the licensing authority, so he cannot maintain this writ petition and in this regard a case law Dharamraj vs State of U.P. and others, 2009 27 LCD 1373;has been cited, wherein it has been held that a person, who is not aggrieved, has no locus standi to file the writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel has also supported the version of learned counsel for caviator and has cited a case law Rajesh Kumar V. State of U.P. and others,2017 35 LCD 2448; wherein also similar principle of law has been taken. On the basis of these cases laws, it is stated that since the petitioner was simply a complainant before the authority concerned, he cannot be held to be a person aggrieved and he cannot maintain this writ petition.;