High Court Reaffirms Locus Standi in Writ Jurisdiction
Holding that only the aggrieved party can seek writ relief; petition disposed as withdrawn with liberty to the appropriate person. Upheld existing precedent—binding on subordinate courts in Orissa.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/33445/2021 of AKASH SHRIVASTAVA Vs MCL, SAMBALPUR |
| CNR | ODHC010722862021 |
| Date of Registration | 28-10-2021 |
| Decision Date | 18-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed of as withdrawn with liberty |
| Judgment Author | Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Affirmation of existing precedent |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Writ jurisdiction (maintainability / locus standi) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a non-aggrieved person can maintain a writ petition challenging an order rejecting another’s claim |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court observed that the impugned communication pertained exclusively to the claim of the petitioner’s mother, rendering the petitioner himself non-aggrieved. In absence of personal injury or legal wrong to the petitioner, the writ petition is not maintainable. Only the aggrieved party possesses locus standi to challenge such a decision. The petitioner was permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to enable the appropriate person to file proceedings. The order upholds the principle that maintainability of writ petitions requires direct interest or affectation of rights. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the Orissa High Court’s jurisdiction |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that Article 226 petitions require locus standi and must be filed by the aggrieved party.
- Confirms that non-aggrieved persons challenging decisions affecting third parties lack maintainability.
- Demonstrates judicial flexibility by granting leave to withdraw and permitting the proper person to institute proceedings.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The impugned communication (Annexure-9) rejected a claim made by the petitioner’s mother.
- Only a person whose rights are directly affected has locus standi under Article 226.
- The petitioner, not being aggrieved, could not maintain the writ petition.
- The court allowed the petition to be withdrawn with liberty for the appropriate person to file a fresh petition.
Factual Background
In October 2021, the petitioner challenged a communication (Annexure-9) from Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. rejecting his mother’s claim. Although the petition was filed by the son, he lacked any direct legal injury. On hearing, counsel sought withdrawal of the petition with liberty for the proper person to pursue the matter. The High Court disposed of the petition as withdrawn with that liberty.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
Citations
- W.P.(C) No.33445 of 2021 (Orissa High Court)