# Rinki Gupta v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2020) 12 ILRA 451 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2020-11-05 - **Case number:** Writ - C No. 14091 of 2020 - **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rinki-gupta-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45613 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Constitution of india-Article 226- fundamental rights -locus standi - Petitioner has no fundamental or statutory right to stop another operator coming in business near his petrol pump. (Para - 6) Dispute relating to opening the petrol pump near to the petrol pump of the petitioner. (Para - 4) 452 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Held: - Petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition. Declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction where the claim of the petitioner is essentially aimed at eliminating healthy competition and for perpetuating his monopoly in the area. (Para - 9,10) Writ Petition is dismissed. (E-7) List of Cases cited: - ## Text 12 All. Rinki Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 451 Consequently, even if opportunity of hearing would have been given to the petitioner, it would not have improved the situation, a fact clearly admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. Coming to the next judgement cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in Dattu Namdev Thakur (supra), it is pertinent to note that in the said case, the Supreme Court did not interfere with the findings of the High Court upholding order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee cancelling the caste certificate of the petitioners. However, while dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Supreme Court issued certain directions to safeguard the interest of the petitioners before it by observing thus :- "9. Accordingly, while dismissing all the three Special Leave Petitions, we direct that whatever advantage the three petitioners in the three Special Leave Petitions, may have derived on the basis of their 'Caste Certificates', shall not be disturbed and the cancellation of their respective 'Caste Certificates' will not deprive them of the benefits which they have already enjoyed. However, we also make it clear that none of the three petitioners in the three respective Special Leave Petitions, will be entitled to take any further advantage of reservation in future, either for studies or for employment. Following the judgment in Swati's case, we also direct that if the petitioners in the 2nd and 3rd Special Leave Petitions, have obtained any concession by way of reduction in fees, as a reserved candidate, they will have to make good the same by paying the difference in fees that is being paid by general candidates. Such payment has to be made within a period of six months and in default of such payment, this order will cease to have any effect." 11. The petitioner, it seems, is working as Assistant Teacher in a Primary School run by Basic Shiksha Parishad. If any action is taken by the employer on the ground of cancellation of the certificate of 'dependent of freedom fighter', it would always be open to the petitioner to press for extending the benefit of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Dattu Namdev Thakur being given to him. Since at this stage, the only order challenged before us is that of cancellation of the certificate, therefore, with the above liberty reserved in favour of the petitioner, the instant petition stands dismissed. ---------- (2020)12ILR A451 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.11.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J. THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Writ - C No. 14091 of 2020 Rinki Gupta ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Vinay Kumar Mishra Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Sri Chandra Bhushan Yadav, Sri Tapan Kumar Mishra, Sri Vikas Budhwar, Sri Vivekanand Yadav (A) Constitution of india-Article 226- fundamental rights -locus standi - Petitioner has no fundamental or statutory right to stop another operator coming in business near his petrol pump. (Para - 6) Dispute relating to opening the petrol pump near to the petrol pump of the petitioner. (Para - 4) 452 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Held: - Petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition. Declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction where the claim of the petitioner is essentially aimed at eliminating healthy competition and for perpetuating his monopoly in the area. (Para - 9,10) Writ Petition is dismissed. (E-7) List of Cases cited: - 1. D.C.M. Shri Ram Industries Ltd. & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2007 4 ADJ 150 2. M/s. Luheta Urja Kendra & anr.Vs U.O.I. & ors., Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.54670 of 2009 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 5. Nagar Rice and Flour Mills Vs N.T. Gowda, (1970) 1 SCC 575 (Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. & Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State - respondents, Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vivekanand Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no.5. 2. The petitioner is running a retail outlet of Indian Oil Corporation in Village - Bodarwar, Tehsil - Hata, District - Kushinagar. The petitioner is challenging the opening of another retail outlet at a nearby place by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. which is to be run by allottee i.e. the respondent no.5. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 5 have raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi and being a rival, the writ petition is not maintainable at his behest. In support of their submissions they relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in D.C.M. Shri Ram Industries Ltd. and another vs. State of U.P. and others, 2007 4 ADJ 150 (para 26) and judgment dated 13.5.2011 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.54670 of 2009 (M/s. Luheta Urja Kendra and another Vs. Union of India and others. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an aggrieved person inasmuch the respondent nos. 2 and 5 are opening the petrol pump near to the petrol pump of the petitioner. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties on the preliminary objection. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner is running a petrol pump. By means of present writ petition he is opposing the establishment of another petrol pump near his petrol pump. Thus, the whole effort of the petitioner by means of this writ petition 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 business near his petrol pump. 7. In Nagar Rice and Flour Mills Vs. 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 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 Moti Bhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar (1976) 1 SCC 671 and 12 All. M/s Dilip Singh Contractor, Mainpuri Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 453 Mithilesh Garg and other Vs. 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. 10. For all the reasons aforestated, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground that petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition. ---------- (2020)12ILR A453 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.10.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, J. THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. Writ - C No. 14553 of 2020 M/s Dilip Singh Contractor, Mainpuri ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Siddharth Khare, Sri Ashok Khare Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. (A) Civil law- Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 - section 21(5) - Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 - Rules 57 & 58 - deduction, to the extent of five times of the royalty amount - It is taken to be price of the mineral used without payment of royalty. (Para -16) Challenged the Government Order and the order of the Engineer-in-Chief (Development & Head of Department), Public Works Department - Petitioner is "A" class Contractor - executing work of Public Works Department - using the minerals for execution of contract work - deduction of royalty six times to the amount of royalty pursuant to the Government Order - direction given to deduct the amount of royalty to the extent of five times to the royalty amount in case it is found that the mineral has been used without a valid transit pass on Form MM-11 - deduction amount to be from the bills of the Contractor. (Para - 2) Held: - This Court may not cause interference in the impugned circular and otherwise, the petitioner is one who has come with premature writ petition having not suffered any deduction, till date. Thus, it seems to be a writ petition in anticipation to evade the royalty and to safeguard the consequences. (Para - 9) Writ Petition dismissed. (E-7) List of Cases cited: - 1. Ayodhya Prasad Mishra Vs St. of U.P. & ors. , 2016 (11) ADJ 607 (DB) 2. St. of Raj. & anr. Vs Deep Jyoti Company & anr. , (2016) 6 SCC 120 3. Abhimanyu Singh & 12 ors. Vs St. of U.P. & 9 ors. , Writ C No. 1510 of 2016 (Delivered by Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J. & Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J.) 1. We have heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Siddharth Khare, counsel appearing for the petitioner; and Shri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State - respondents. 2. By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the Government Order dated 15.10.2015 and the order of the Engineer-inChief (Development & Head of Department), Public Works Department dated 26.08.2019. 3. It is stated that the petitioner is "A" class Contractor, executing work of Public