# Amir Kumar Mishra v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 2 ILRA 287
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-12-07
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 17754 of 2020
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar Mishra, Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amir-kumar-mishra-v-union-of-india-ors-46151
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A.S.G.I.,
Annapurna
Singh,
Sri
Vikas
Budhwar

Constitution of India, Art.226- Writ of
Mandamus - Aggrieved person - Legal
wrong
-
Establishment
of
competing
business which may have adverse impact
on petitioner's profitability cannot give
rise to legal wrong - law does not
recognize
any
remedy
unless
it
is
established that the person had suffered a
legal
wrong
or
a
wrong
which
is
recognised or is recognizable in law. (Para
7)

Petitioner sought direction to authorities not to
issue final allotment letter for retail outlet
dealership in favour of respondent -Held -
Petitioner is mere rival in trade - petitioner has
no locus standi to challenge the advertisement
being rival businessman- Business disputes
between parties can be adjudicated by Civil
Court
provided
any
appropriate
suit
for
injunction is filed - Court cannot interfere when
question of supplying essential commodities
involved. (Para 8, 9,10)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-4)

List of Cases cited : -

## Text

2 All. Amir Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India & Ors.
287
therefore set aside and the appeal is
allowed.

20. All questions of law and fact
remain open for consideration in any
application by the aggrieved before the
statutory forum under the SARFAESI Act."

15. In a recent judgment in the case of
ICICI
Bank
Ltd
Vs
Umakanta
Mohapatra, (2019) 13 SCC 497, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has disapproved
the practice of granting interim orders in
reference to the matters arising out of the
SARFAESI Act, and held as under:-

"2. Despite several judgments of
this Court, including a judgment by
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Navin Sinha, as recently
as on 30.01.2018, in Authorized Officer,
State Bank of Travancore and Another VS
Mathew KC., (2018) 3 SCC 85, the High
Courts continue to entertain matters
which arise under Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002 (SARFAESI), and keep granting
interim orders in favour of persons who
are Non-Performing Assets (NPAs).

3. The writ petition itself was not
maintainable, as a result of which, in view
of our recent judgment, which has followed
earlier judgments of this Court, held as
follows:-

"17.
We
cannot
help
but
disapprove the approach of the High Court
for reasons already noticed in Dwarikesh
Sugar Industries Ltd. Vs Prem Heavy
Engineering Works (P) Ltd and another,
(1997) 6 SCC 450, observing:-

"32. When a position, in law, is
well settled as a result of judicial
pronouncement of this Court, it would
amount to judicial impropriety to say the
least, for the subordinate courts including
the High Courts to ignore the settled
decisions and then to pass a judicial order
which is clearly contrary to the settled
legal position. Such judicial adventurism
cannot be permitted and we strongly
deprecate the tendency of the subordinate
courts in not applying the settled principles
and in passing whimsical orders which
necessarily has the effect of granting
wrongful and unwarranted relief to one of
the parties. It is time that this tendency
stops."

4. The writ petition, in this case,
being not maintainable, obviously, all
orders passed must perish, including the
impugned order, which is set aside."

16. Considering the facts of the
present case particularly that the petitioners
have already availed the remedy under
Section 17(1) of the Act, we do not find
any good reason to entertain this writ
petition.

17. Consequently, the writ petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2021)02ILR A287
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.12.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ C No. 17754 of 2020

Amir Kumar Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rahul Jain, Sri Tushar Kant

Counsel for the Respondents:
288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A.S.G.I.,
Annapurna
Singh,
Sri
Vikas
Budhwar

Constitution of India, Art.226- Writ of
Mandamus - Aggrieved person - Legal
wrong
-
Establishment
of
competing
business which may have adverse impact
on petitioner's profitability cannot give
rise to legal wrong - law does not
recognize
any
remedy
unless
it
is
established that the person had suffered a
legal
wrong
or
a
wrong
which
is
recognised or is recognizable in law. (Para
7)

Petitioner sought direction to authorities not to
issue final allotment letter for retail outlet
dealership in favour of respondent -Held -
Petitioner is mere rival in trade - petitioner has
no locus standi to challenge the advertisement
being rival businessman- Business disputes
between parties can be adjudicated by Civil
Court
provided
any
appropriate
suit
for
injunction is filed - Court cannot interfere when
question of supplying essential commodities
involved. (Para 8, 9,10)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-4)

List of Cases cited : -

1. Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs Roshan Kumar &
ors. (1976) 1 SCC 671, AIR 1976 SC 578

2. The Nagar Rice & Flour Mills & ors. Vs N.
Teekappa Gowda & Bros. & ors. AIR 1971 SC
246

3. M.L. Krishnamurthy Vs The District Revenue
Officer, Vellore & ors. AIR 1990 Madras 87 (FB)

4. Ganesh Chandra Hazarika Vs State of Assam
& ors. AIR 1981 Gauhati 36

5. M/s. Kisan Seva Kendra Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
C.M.W.P. No. 39125 of 2007 dt 22.08

6. Manoj Kumar Vs Union of India & ors.
C.M.W.P. No. 15351 of 2011 and 14th March,
2011

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
&
Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. The petitioner has preferred the
present writ petition inter-alia with the
prayer to issue a mandamus directing the
respondents
to
decide
the
pending
representation. A further prayer has also
been made in the writ petition to direct the
respondents not to issue final allotment
letter for retail outlet dealership for village
Pasna, Tehsil Koraon on Meja to Koran
M.D.R. Road, Prayagraj in favour of the
respondent No.4.

2. Facts in brief as contained in the
writ petition are that Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd./respondent No.2 issued an
advertisement
on
14.10.2014
inviting
online applications for allotment of regular
and rural retail outlet dealership through
draw of lots for various Districts in the
State of U.P. The petitioner has also
submitted his online application form for
allotment of retail outlet dealership and he
was allotted a retail outlet dealership in the
location namely village Pasna, Tehsil
Koraon, District Prayagraj. In this regard, a
letter of intent was also issued in his favour
by respondent-corporation on 25.08.2018.
It is stated that retail outlet dealership of
the petitioner is situated at M.D.R. 121,
Sirsa-Koraon Road between milestone 24
kms.to 26 kms. The petitioner stated his
retail outlet dealership in the name and
style J.K.Automobiles, at Village Pasna,
Tehsil Koraon, Meja Road, Prayagraj. It is
further
stated
that
the
retail
outlet
dealership of the petitioner is situated in a
rural area where the sale of petroleum
product is not very good. It is stated that
respondent No.4 namely Sri Vivek Shukla,
started the construction of boundary wall of
his petrol pump in village Pasna and during
the course of inquiry, the petitioner came to
2 All. Amir Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India & Ors.
289
know that Sri Vivek Shukla has also
allotted retail outlet dealership in his favour
by
respondent
Hindustan
Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. In this regard, the
petitioner further came to know that an
advertisement was also issued by the
respondent-Hindustan
Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. on 24.12.2018 in which
details of petrol pump, which was allotted
in
favour
of
respondent
No.4,
was
mentioned at Serial No.2052. It is further
stated that in spite of best efforts, the
petitioner could not get the copy of the
letter of intent issued in favour of
respondent No.4 and when the respondent
No.4 started construction of boundary wall
of the retail outlet dealership, he came to
know regarding his selection for location in
question.

3. After the petitioner came to know
about the aforesaid facts, he made a
representation dated 22.08.2020 addressed
to the Chief Regional Manager, Hindustan
Petroleum
Corporation
Ltd./respondent
No.3 vide registered post on 24.08.2020.
Since no action was taken as such, a letter
in the shape of reminder was also made by
the petitioner before respondent No.3 on
12.09.2020 and when no action was taken
on the same, the petitioner has preferred the
present writ petition.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for
the petitioner that a retail outlet dealership
has been allotted in favour of the petitioner
by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
itself in the rural area where sale is not
good and if, a new retail outlet dealership,
which is allotted in favour of respondent
No.4, will affect the business of the
petitioner. It is further argued that the
petitioner has invested huge amount in his
petrol pump before starting business. It is
further argued that the retail outlet
dealership was allotted in favour of the
respondent No.4 only due to his political
connection with ruling party.

5. On the other hand, it is argued that
allotment of retail outlet dealership in
favour of respondent No.4 is absolutely
perfect and valid and after completing all
the formalities as required in law. It is
further argued that the law laid down by
this Court as well as by the Apex Court, the
petitioner does not fall within the definition
of "Aggrieved Person" and it is kind of
business rivalry, the present writ petition
filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India is liable to be
dismissed.

6. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

7. Undisputedly, the petitioner is a
mere rival in trade. The establishment of a
competing business which may have an
adverse impact on his profitability cannot
give rise to a legal wrong. Such actions are
clearly barred on the principle of damnum
sine injuria which essentially holds that the
law does not recognize any remedy unless
it is established that the person had suffered
a legal wrong or to put it differently a
wrong
which
is
recognised
or
is
recognizable in law. In the case of Jasbhai
Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar and
others [(1976) 1 SCC 671], the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in paragraphs 47 & 48 held
following principles:-

"47. Thus, in substance, the
appellant's stand is that the setting up of a
rival cinema house in the town will
adversely
affect
his,
monopolistic
commercial interest, causing pecuniary
harm
and
loss
of
business
from
competition. Such harm or loss is not
290 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
wrongful in the eye of law, because it does
not result in injury to a legal right or a
legally protected, interest, the business
competition causing it being a lawful
activity. Juridical, harm of this description
is called damnum sine injuries, the term
injuria being here used in its true sense of
an act contrary to law. The reason why the
law suffers a person knowingly to inflict
harm of this description on another,
without holding him accountable for it, is
that such harm done to an individual is a
gain to society at large.

48. In the light of the above
discussion, it is demonstrably clear that
the appellant has not been denied or
deprived of a legal right. He has not
sustained injury to any legally protected
interest. In fact, the impugned order does
not operate as a decision against him,
much less does it wrongfully affect his
title to something. He has not been
subjected to a legal wrong. He has
suffered no legal grievance. He has no
legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang
on. Therefore he is not a 'person
aggrieved' and has no locus standi to
challenge the grant of the no-objection
Certificate."

8. Apart from the same, law in this
connection is well settled that the
petitioner has no locus standi to challenge
the
advertisement
being
rival
businessman.
This
controversy
has
already been decided in large number of
cases not only by Apex Court but also
different High Courts. Reference of some
cases are AIR 1971 SC 246 (The Nagar
Rice and Flour Mills and others Vs. N.
Teekappa
Gowda
&
Bros.
and
others),AIR 1976 SC 578 (Jasbhai
Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji
Bashir Ahmed and others), AIR 1990
Madras 87 (FB) (M.L. Krishnamurthy
and etc. Vs. The District Revenue
Officer, Vellore and another), AIR 1981
Gauhati 36 (Ganesh Chandra Hazarika
Vs. State of Assam and others).

9. The Division Bench of this Court
in the cases of Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No. 39125 of 2007 (M/s. Kisan Seva
Kendra Vs. State of U.P. & ors.) and
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15351 of
2011 (Manoj Kumar Vs. Union of India
and others) delivered on 22nd August,
2007 and 14th March, 2011 respectively
held that when the petitioner wants that a
competitor should not carry on any
similar business near his business place,
such type of disputes between the parties
can be adjudicated by the civil Court
provided
any
appropriate
suit
for
injunction is filed. This Court can not
interfere with the same particularly when
the
question
of
supplying
essential
commodities is involved.

10. In view of the facts as narrated
above and the law laid down by the
Supreme Court as well as this Court, we
do not find any reason to pass any
affirmative order in favour of the
petitioner in the writ petition. Hence, the
present
writ
petition
is
dismissed,
however, no order is passed as to costs.
----------
(2021)02ILR A290
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.11.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 17830 of 2020