# M/s Prince Filing Station v. Union Gov. of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 2 ILRA 312
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-12-17
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 22409 of 2020
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-prince-filing-station-v-union-gov-of-india-ors-46155
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India Art. 19(1)(g), 226Competitor
in
business-Locus
standi-
where
the
claim
of
the
petitioner is solely to prevent a rival from
exercising a right to carry on business, he
has no locus standi to maintain a writ
petition - as the same would be aimed at
eliminating
healthy
competition
in
business - a person cannot claim that no
other person shall carry on business or
trade so as to adversely affect his trade or
business (Para 8,9)

Petitioner
having
retail
outlet
dealership,
challenged letter of intent (LOI) whereunder it
was proposed to offer retail outlet dealership to
respondent - Held - petitioner being rival
business man cannot be said to be a person
aggrieved & has no locus standi to maintain writ
petition - writ petition dismissed.

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-4)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2021)02ILR A312
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.12.2020

BEFORE

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

Writ C No. 22409 of 2020

M/s Prince Filing Station ...Petitioner
Versus
Union Gov. of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Awadhesh Kumar Singh, Sri Abhai
Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Anand Tiwari, C.S.C., Sri Vikas
Budhwar

Constitution of India Art. 19(1)(g), 226Competitor
in
business-Locus
standi-
where
the
claim
of
the
petitioner is solely to prevent a rival from
exercising a right to carry on business, he
has no locus standi to maintain a writ
petition - as the same would be aimed at
eliminating
healthy
competition
in
business - a person cannot claim that no
other person shall carry on business or
trade so as to adversely affect his trade or
business (Para 8,9)

Petitioner
having
retail
outlet
dealership,
challenged letter of intent (LOI) whereunder it
was proposed to offer retail outlet dealership to
respondent - Held - petitioner being rival
business man cannot be said to be a person
aggrieved & has no locus standi to maintain writ
petition - writ petition dismissed.

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-4)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Rinki Gupta Vs St. of U.P. & ors. WritC No.
14091 of 2020, 05.11.2020

2. Nagar Rice & Flour Mills Vs N.T. Gowda
(1970) 1 SCC 575

3. Jas Bhai Moti Bhai Desai Vs Roshan Kumar
(1976) 1 SCC 671

4. Mithilesh Garg & ors. Vs U.O.I. & ors. (1992)
1 SCC 168

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Praksh Kesarwani, J.
&
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the
respondent no. 4 and Sri Yash Padia
holding brief of Sri Anand Tiwari, learned
counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3.

2. The petitioner having a retail outlet
dealership of MS/HSD, awarded by the
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, has
filed the present writ petition principally
seeking to raise a grievance with regard to
issuance of a letter of intent (LOI) dated
15.06.2019 and Addendum to LOI dated
26.8.2020 whereunder it is proposed to
offer to the respondent no. 6 a retail outlet
dealership of Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Ltd. pursuant to an advertisement dated
25.11.2018, issued for the purpose.

3. In paragraph eight of the writ
petition, the petitioner has stated as under :-

"8. That the petitioner has also
been awarded outlet dealership of MS/HSD
by Bharat Petroleum Limited under CC
category and the proposed outlet is only
800 meter away from the side of the
petitioner's outlet and in this way, sale of
Bharat Petroleum Limited shall be badly
effected and petitioner shall be sufferer on
2 All. M/s Prince Filing Station Vs. Union Gov. of India & Ors.
313
account of the aforesaid outlet and as such
the petitioner is an aggrieved person."

4. Learned counsel appearing for the
respondents
have
objected
to
the
maintainability of the writ petition on the
ground that the petitioner being a rival
business man, has no locus standi to
maintain the writ petition as he cannot be
said to be a person aggrieved, and in this
regard reliance is placed on a recent
judgment of this Court in Rinki Gupta Vs.
State of U.P. and others1.

5. The question as to whether a
competitor in business can seek to prevent
a rival party from exercising its right to
carry
on
business
came
up
for
consideration in Nagar Rice and Flour
Mills Vs. N.T. Gowda2. It was a case of a
rice mill seeking to oppose the setting up of
another rice mill in its vicinity on the
ground that its business was likely to be
adversely affected, and in that context it
was held that a competitor in business
cannot seek to prevent a rival from
exercising its right to carry on business.
The observations made in the judgment in
this regard are as follows :-

"8.The Parliament has by the
Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act,
1958, prescribed limitations that an existing
rice mill shall carry on business only after
obtaining a licence and if the rice mill is to
be shifted from its existing location,
previous
permission
of
the
Central
Government shall be obtained. Permission
for shifting their rice mill was obtained by
the appellants from the Director of Food
and Civil Supplies. The appellants had not
started rice milling operations before the
sanction of the Director of Food and Civil
Supplies was obtained. Even if it be
assumed that the previous sanction has to
be obtained from the authorities before the
machinery is moved from its existing site,
we fail to appreciate what grievance the
respondents may raise against the grant of
permission by the authority permitting the
installation of machinery on a new site. The
right to carry on business being a
fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of
the Constitution, its exercise is subject only
to the restrictions imposed by law in the
interests of the general public under Article
19(6)(i).

9. Section 8(3)(c) is merely
regulatory, if it is not complied with the
appellants may probably be exposed to a
penalty, but a competitor in the business
cannot seek to prevent the appellants from
exercising their right to carry on business,
because of the default, nor can the rice mill
of the appellants be regarded as a new rice
mill. Competition in the trade or business
may be subject to such restrictions as are
permissible and are imposed by the State
by a law enacted in the interests of the
general public under Article 19(6) but a
person cannot claim independently of such
restriction that another person shall not
carry on business or trade so as to affect his
trade or business adversely. The appellants
complied with the statutory requirements
for carrying on rice milling operations in
the building on the new site. Even
assuming that no previous permission was
obtained, the respondents would have no
locus standi for challenging the grant of the
permission, because no right vested in the
respondents was infringed."

6. The requirement of a person being
"an aggrieved person" in order to maintain
a writ of certiorari fell for consideration in
Jas Bhai Moti Bhai Desai Vs. Roshan
Kumar3, and after discussing various
authorities, it was held that in order to have
the locus standi to invoke certiorari
314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
jurisdiction, the petitioner should be "an
aggrieved person", and if he does not fulfil
that character, the Court will, in its
discretion, deny him this extraordinary
remedy. The stand taken by the appellant
therein that the setting up of a rival cinema
house in the town would adversely affect
his commercial interest, causing pecuniary
harm and loss of business from competition
was held to be not affecting his legally
protected interest so as to give him
justiciable claim and it was held that
issuance of a writ of certiorari at his
instance
would
eliminate
healthy
competition in business.

7. A similar view was taken in
Mithilesh Garg and others Vs. Union of
India and others4, wherein a challenge to
grant of permit under the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 by existing permit holders, was
repelled on the ground that the right under
Article 19 (1) (g) does not extend to
shutting out competition and that more
operators
would
mean
a
healthy
competition and an efficient transport
system.

8. Having regard to the foregoing
discussion, we may reiterate the position
that in normal course it would not be open
to a competitor in business to seek to
prevent a rival from exercising a right to
carry on business. Competition in a trade or
business may be subject to restrictions as
are permissible and as may be imposed by
a law enacted in the interests of general
public. However, independent of any such
restriction, a person cannot claim that no
other person shall carry on business or
trade so as to adversely affect his trade or
business.

9. In order to have the locus standi to
invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution,
the petitioner should be "an aggrieved
person". We are of the view that where the
claim of the petitioner is solely to prevent a
rival from exercising a right to carry on
business, he would not have the locus
standi to maintain a writ petition as the
same would essentially be aimed at
eliminating
healthy
competition
in
business.

10. For the aforestated reasons, the
writ petition is liable to be dismissed and it
is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2021)02ILR A314
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.01.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ NAQVI, J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Writ C No. 22742 of 2020

Jagdish Prasad Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nitin Chandra Mishra, Sri Anoop Trivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Islam Ahmad, Sri Vinod Kumar
Sahu

U. P. Municipalities Act (2 of 1916) S. 48
(2) - Proceedings for removal of Chairman
- Cessation of financial and administrative
powers - It is not necessary to permit
Chairman concerned to participate before
the inquiry committee to contest the
allegation - person concerned must be
confronted with show cause containing
charges, so as to enable him to respond -
It is only after receipt of the reply that
State Government can pass an order, on