Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana high court has held that mere harm, annoyance, or sentimental grievance—termed damnum sine injuria (damage without legal injury)—does not confer the status of an “aggrieved person” in litigation.According to the HC, a third party, including a complainant or whistleblower, lacks the locus standi to challenge the correctness of service actions. Such an individual may, at most, lead evidence as a witness but cannot assume the status of an adversarial litigant. “To be considered aggrieved, an individual must demonstrate that they are deprived of a legal right or that their legally protected interest is adversely affected or jeopardised. A person having merely a remote or tenuous interest, one who initiates litigation driven by personal animosity, or even one who professes to act in the public interest as a self-styled vigilant, cannot claim locus standi, as they lack the ‘legal peg’ upon which a justiciable claim can be hung,” the court clarified. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar passed the orders while allowing three petitions filed by Satbir Singh and another petitioner against Haryana and others regarding a dispute at the Shahabad Cooperative Sugar Mill in Kurukshetra. Justice Brar held that a stranger to the litigation, possessing no proprietary or specific interest in the subject matter, is strictly prohibited from meddling in judicial proceedings. The dispute arose after the chairman of the Shahabad mill issued an order on May 21, 2025, nullifying previous “speaking orders” by the managing director (MD) that had exonerated the petitioners regarding alleged procurement irregularities. The petitioners contended that the chairman lacked the statutory authority under the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act or the relevant service rules to overturn the MD’s disciplinary decisions. They further argued that the impugned order was passed without a show-cause notice, without disclosing the evidence relied upon, and without granting them a hearing. Upon hearing the parties, the HC held that even if the chairman intended to disagree with prior findings, the principles of natural justice required that the affected employees be heard. The bench quashed the chairman’s order and all subsequent proceedings. During the hearing, the original complainant filed an application seeking to be impleaded as a party, claiming his exposure of tender irregularities gave him a stake in the outcome. The HC rejected this, reiterating that in service jurisprudence, only those directly aggrieved by an order have locus standi. A whistleblower, the bench observed, cannot assume the role of an adversarial litigant in an employer-employee dispute. BOX The whistleblower/complainant, despite having exposed irregularities, remains a stranger to the employer-employee lis (litigation) and cannot be permitted to become a party to the proceedings Justice Harpreet Singh Brar MSID:: 128506669 413 |
