# Mohammad Aqib v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 428
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-14
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 7293 of 2025
- **Bench:** Saral Srivastava, Sudhanshu Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohammad-aqib-v-union-of-india-ors-52852
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A S.G.I., Ashish Kumar Singh, C.S.C.,
Komal Mehrotra, Mithilesh Ch. Tripathi,
Vaibhav Tripathi

Issue for consideration
The petitioner, owner of National Filling Station,
challenged the allotment of a new petrol pump
to respondent no, 8 (HPCL). The petitioner
claimed that the new outlet violated the
government guidelines and would drastically
reduce his sales

Headnotes
A. Civil matter-Constitution of India,1950-Article
226-The court held that a rival in trade does
not have the locus standi to challenge the
establishment of a competing business solely on
the grounds of potential financial loss-The
principle of Damnum sine Injuria (damage
without legal injury) does not constitute a
violation of legal rights as petitioner suffered no
legal injury-Citing supereme court precedents
like Jasbhai Motibhai Desai and Mitilesh Garg,
the court emphasized that business competition
is governed by demand and supply and serves
the public interest-Writ petition dismissed.(E-6)
Held
The court ruled that the writ petition is not
maintainable because the petitioner was not
an "aggrieved person" in the legal sense.
The court held that the law does not
recognize a remedy for pecuniary harm
resulting from lawful competition, as no
fundamental or statutory right was infringed.
(Para 6 to 12)

Case law Cited
Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar
and others [(1976) 1 SCC 671] Mithilesh
Garg vs. Union of India is AIR 1992 SC
443, Writ C No.-14091 of 2020 (Rinki
Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) Writ
C No.- 17754 of 2020 (Amir Kumar Mishra
Vs. Union of India and 3 others) 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)

List of Acts.
Constitution of India,1950
List of Keywords
Locus standi, Damnum Sine Injuria, Person
Aggrieved, Rival in trade, business competition,
retail outlet, Petrol Pump, Maintainability.

Case Arising from
CIVIL JURISDICTION: Writ C No. 7293 of 2025
From the judgment and order dated 14.11.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
Mohammad Aqib Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Appearances for parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Adnan Aamir, Chhaya Gupta, Sujeet Kumar

Advs. for the Respondents:
A S.G.I., Ashish Kumar Singh, C.S.C., Komal
Mehrotra,
Mithilesh
Ch.
Tripathi,
Vaibhav
Tripathi

## Text

428 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 428
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
THE HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

Writ C No. 7293 of 2025

Mohammad Aqib ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Adnan Aamir, Chhaya Gupta, Sujeet Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
A S.G.I., Ashish Kumar Singh, C.S.C.,
Komal Mehrotra, Mithilesh Ch. Tripathi,
Vaibhav Tripathi

Issue for consideration
The petitioner, owner of National Filling Station,
challenged the allotment of a new petrol pump
to respondent no, 8 (HPCL). The petitioner
claimed that the new outlet violated the
government guidelines and would drastically
reduce his sales

Headnotes
A. Civil matter-Constitution of India,1950-Article
226-The court held that a rival in trade does
not have the locus standi to challenge the
establishment of a competing business solely on
the grounds of potential financial loss-The
principle of Damnum sine Injuria (damage
without legal injury) does not constitute a
violation of legal rights as petitioner suffered no
legal injury-Citing supereme court precedents
like Jasbhai Motibhai Desai and Mitilesh Garg,
the court emphasized that business competition
is governed by demand and supply and serves
the public interest-Writ petition dismissed.(E-6)
Held
The court ruled that the writ petition is not
maintainable because the petitioner was not
an "aggrieved person" in the legal sense.
The court held that the law does not
recognize a remedy for pecuniary harm
resulting from lawful competition, as no
fundamental or statutory right was infringed.
(Para 6 to 12)

Case law Cited
Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar
and others [(1976) 1 SCC 671] Mithilesh
Garg vs. Union of India is AIR 1992 SC
443, Writ C No.-14091 of 2020 (Rinki
Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) Writ
C No.- 17754 of 2020 (Amir Kumar Mishra
Vs. Union of India and 3 others) 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)

List of Acts.
Constitution of India,1950
List of Keywords
Locus standi, Damnum Sine Injuria, Person
Aggrieved, Rival in trade, business competition,
retail outlet, Petrol Pump, Maintainability.

Case Arising from
CIVIL JURISDICTION: Writ C No. 7293 of 2025
From the judgment and order dated 14.11.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
Mohammad Aqib Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Appearances for parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Adnan Aamir, Chhaya Gupta, Sujeet Kumar

Advs. for the Respondents:
A S.G.I., Ashish Kumar Singh, C.S.C., Komal
Mehrotra,
Mithilesh
Ch.
Tripathi,
Vaibhav
Tripathi

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhanshu
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sujit Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner, learned standing
counsel for respondent nos.2, 3, 6 and 7,
Sri Vaibhav Tripathi, learned counsel for
the respondent no.1 and Sri Komal
11 All. Mohammad Aqib Vs. Union of India & Ors.
429
Malhotra, learned counsel for respondent
nos. 4 and 5.

2. The controversy involved in the
present petition is that the petitioner is
running a retail outlet/petrol pump in the
name and style of M/s National Filling
Station at Hathagram, District Fatehpur. It
is further alleged that respondent no.8 has
been allotted a petrol pump of Hindustan
Petroleum
Corporation
Limited
-
respondent no.5 in contravention to the
guidelines contained in the government
order dated 4.12.2019. It is further alleged
that the petitioner in respect of his
grievance has also filed a representation
before the District Magistrate, Fatehpurrespondent no.3. In pursuance thereto, the
respondent no.3 had issued a show cause
notice dated 13.9.2024 to the respondent
no.5 and respondent no.8. Hence, by means
of the present petition, the petitioner has
sought direction for respondent no.3 to
cancel the no objection certificate dated
7.10.2023 granted to the respondent no.8 to
run the aforesaid retail outlet, notably
annexed as Annexure No.4 to the petition.

3. At the very outset, a preliminary
objection has been raised by Sri Komal
Malhotra,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent nos. 4 and 5 regarding the
maintainability of the present petition on
the ground that the petitioner has no locus
to maintain the present petition as the
petitioner has no fundamental/statutory
right to stop another operator-respondent
no.8 from setting up his retail outlet near
the retail outlet of the petitioner.

4. In this regard, the perusal of the
petition reveals that the petitioner has alleged
that operation of the retail outlet by the
respondent no.8 is causing problem to the
public at large and also to the local
businessman including the petitioner whose
sale has been drastically dropped. Hence, it is
beyond doubt that the allotment of the retail
outlet in favor of the respondent no.8 is
allegedly going to adversely affect the
business of the petitioner.

5. Undisputedly, the petitioner is merely
a rival in trade of respondent no.8. The
establishment of a competing business which
may have an adverse impact on the
profitability of the petitioner cannot give right
to a legal wrong, as such actions are clearly
barred by the principle of damnum sine
injuria which essentially holds that the law
does not recognise any remedy unless it is
established that a person has suffered a legal
wrong or, to put it differently, a wrong which
is recognised or is recognizable in law.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan
Kumar and others [(1976) 1 SCC 671], had
held as under:-

"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
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
430 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Mithilesh Garg vs. Union of India
is AIR 1992 SC 443, where a similar
controversy had raised in respect of grant
of new carrier permits under the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 and the scheme was
challenged by the existing operators, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as under :-

"The
apprehensions
of
the
petitioners, that too many operators on a
route are likely to affect adversely the
interest of weaker section of the profession
is without any basis. The transport business
is bound to be ironed out ultimately by the
rationale of demand and supply. Cost of a
vehicle being as it is the business requires
huge investment. The intending operators
are likely to be conscious of the economics
underlying the profession. Only such
number of vehicles would finally remain in
operation on a particular route as are
economically viable. In any case the
transport system in a state is meant for the
benefit and convenience of the public. The
policy to grant permits liberally under the
Act is directed towards the said goal. The
petitioners who are already in the business
want to keep the fresh entrants out of it and
as such eliminate the healthy com-petition
which is necessary to bring efficiency in the
trade."

8. A co-ordinate bench of this Court in
Writ C No.-14091 of 2020 (Rinki Gupta
Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) wherein, a
similar controversy regarding setting up of
a new petrol pump was involved, vide the
judgment and order dated 05.11.2020 had
held as under:-

"6. Admittedly, the petitioner is
running a petrol pump. By means of the
present writ petition he is opposing the
establishment of another petrol pump near
his petrol pump. Thus, the whole effort of
the petitioner is to stop a new operator
coming in the field as his competitor. The
petitioner has no fundamental or statutory
right to stop another operator coming in
the business near his petrol pump.

7. In Nagar Rice and Flour Mills
v. N.T. Gowda (1970) 1 SCC 575 it was
held that a rice mill owner has no locus
standi to challenge under Article 226 the
setting up of a new rice mill by another for
the reason that none of his vested rights are
infringed.

8. A similar view was taken in the
decisions in Jas Bhai Desai v. Roshan
Kumar (1976) 1 SCC 671 and Mithilesh
Garg and others v. Union of India and
others (1992) 1 SCC 168.

9. We are not inclined to exercise
our discretionary jurisdiction where the
claim of the petitioner is essentially aimed
at eliminating healthy competition and for
perpetuating his monopoly in the area."

9. Another co-ordinate bench of this
Court in Writ C No.- 17754 of 2020 (Amir
Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India and 3
others) while dismissing the writ petition
involving the controversy of allotment of a
new retail outlet had held as under:-

"7. Undisputedly, the petitioner is
a mere rival in trade. The establishment of
11 All. Ajeet Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
431
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."

10. Further co-ordinate benches of this
Court in 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.

11. Under the circumstances, we are of
the view that the petitioner has no locus to
maintain present writ petition as the
petitioner does not fall within the definition
of "aggrieved person". Hence, the present
writ petition at the instance of the petitioner
is not maintainable.

12. In view of facts narrated above, the
present writ petition is dismissed leaving it
open for the petitioner to avail a remedy
before other forums available to him under
law.

13. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 431
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 7426 of 2025

Ajeet Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shraddha Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C S.C.

Issue for consideration
 The key issue was whether the ARTO could
validly restrict the registration of new Erickshaws and E-autos exclusively to permanent
residents of Lucknow.

Headnotes
A. Civil matter-Constitution of India, 1950-Article
14, 19(1)(g) , 21 and 226- An administrative
restriction on the right to carry on business
based solely on a person's status as a nonpermanent resident of a city is discriminatory
and violates fundamental rights-The court
quashed the portion of the impugned order that
restricted
registrations
to
permanent
residents.(E-6)

Held,
The court held that the restriction was arbitrary
and
lacked
reasonable
classification.
the
authorities argued that non-permanent residents
(living in rented accommodation) were difficult
to track for serving notices regarding fitness
certificates. The court found this reasoning
legally insufficient and unconstitutional. (Para 6
to 10)

List of Acts