Telangana High Court
Bommak Chandrashekar vs The Regional Head on 3 June, 2024
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WRIT PETITION No.17123 OF 2023
Between:
Bommak Chandrashekar
... Petitioner
And
The Regional Head, State Level Co-ordinator
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation limited & others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 03.06.2024
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes
marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to : Yes
see the fair copy of the Judgment?
___________________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
2
WP_17123_2023
SN,J
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.17123 OF 2023
% 03.06.2024
Between:
# Bommak Chandrashekar
... Petitioner
And
$ The Regional Head, State Level Co-ordinator
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation limited & others
... Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr S.Lakshmikanth
^ Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Mr Thoom Srinivas
^ Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Mr B.Narendera Naik
^ Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Mr Dominic Fernandes
^ Counsel for the Respondent No.4: Mr Manu
? Cases Referred:
1. 2020 SCC online Alahabad 1562
2. 2008(1) ALD 138
3. 1976 Vol.1 SCC 671
3
WP_17123_2023
SN,J
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.17123 OF 2023
ORDER:
Heard Sri S.Lakshmikanth, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Thoom Srinivas,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent,
Sri B.Narendra Naik, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the 2nd respondent, Sri Dominic Fernandez, the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent
and Sri Manu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the 4th respondent.
2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer
as under:
"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an
appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one
in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the
highhanded action of the Respondent No.2 in issuing the
Letter of Intent vide No.HRT-NRO-Boduppal dated
16.02.2022 in favour the Respondent No.4 for setting up of
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Retail Outlet at the
location between Boduppal 'X' Roads to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar
Statue on Boduppal Road not on NH for which the
Petitioner was issued Letter of Intent by the Respondent
WP_17123_2023
SN,J
No.3 vide Ref:M/2021/IC002234/TG./000093/4401/00038
dated 24.02.2022. pursuant to the Notification dated
14.12.2018 as arbitrary illegal unjust, contrary to the
public Notification dated 14.12.2018 issued by the
Respondent No.3, violative of principles of natural justice;
consequently, quash the Letter of Intent vide No. HRT-
NRO-Boduppal dated 16.02.2022 issued by the Respondent
No.2 in favour of Respondent No.4 and pass such other
order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest
of justice."
3. PERUSED THE RECORD :
A) The orders of this Court dated 04.07.2023 passed in
W.P.No.17123 of 2023 is extracted hereunder:
"Notice before admission.
Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel takes
notice for respondent No.1
Sri Dominic Fernandez, learned Standing Counsel
takes notice for respondent No.3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to
take out personal notice to respondent Nos.2 and 4 by
registered post with acknowledgement due and file proof of
service in the Registry.
Post on 18.07.2023.
Pending further orders, respondent Nos.2 and 4 are
directed not to commence to the business operations in the
subject Retail Outlet."
The said order dated 04.07.2023 passed in
W.P.No.17123 of 2023 is in force as on date.
WP_17123_2023
SN,J
B) The counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent
No.3, and in particular, paragraph No.6, reads as under:
"6. In reply to paragraph 2 to 4 of the Writ Affidavit it is
submitted that the location "Between Boduppal 'X' Roads
to Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Statue on Boduppal Road not on NH -
under open category in Medchal-Malkajgiri District" was
advertised in SRMP-2018 under serial No.468. The same
was advertised as a biding site with minimum bid value of
30 Lacs. There were 4 applicants for the above advertised
site in Group-1 (Own Land Category). The petitioner was
the second highest bidder. The applicant with highest bid
value was disqualified and accordingly, the Petitioner was
selected. It is further submitted that the guidelines issued
by IRC are directory in nature and are not mandatory.
Furthermore, there is no G.O. issued in the state of
Telangana for adoption of the same that has been brought
to the knowledge of the Respondent Corporation."
C) The counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent
No.2, and in particular, paras 13 to 20, read as under:
"13. The Respondent No. 4 was initially issued Letter of
Intent dated 01.12.2012 for setting up a retail outlet at
Santalpur, Gujarat. Subsequent to the initial issuance of
Letter of Intent in favour of Respondent No. 4, the Ministry
of Petroleum and Natural Gas issued a Circular dated
12.04.2012 bearing No. P-19011/4/2009/IOC which was
addressed to the oil marketing companies including
Respondent No. 1 and 3, wherein it was specifically stated
WP_17123_2023
SN,J
that LOI holders, belonging to SC/ ST, Widows or Women
above the age of 40 years without earning parents shall be
entitled to avail a one time option to arrange land at a
place of their choice anywhere in the country irrespective
of state/ class of market, subject to the said land meeting
techno commercial viability norms. Copy of Letter of Intent
dated 01.12.2012 is attached herewith as Annexure No. 1.
Copy of the Circular dated 12.04.2012 bearing No.P-
19011/4/2009/IOC is attached herewith as Annexure No.2.
14. It is submitted that the time period provided under the
above mentioned circular for arranging land elsewhere was
initially only one year which was subsequently extended
from time to time until 31.03.2022. The Ministry of
Petroleum and Natural Gas vide Letter dated 24.07.2020
bearing No. M-12029(11)/3/2018/OMC-PNG issued to the
Director of Respondent No. 2 Corporation extended the
time limit up to 31.03.2022 under the above mentioned
one time option to existing LOI holders to arrange land at a
place of their choice anywhere in the country. Letter dated
24.07.2020 bearing No. M- 12029(11)/3/2018/OMC-PNG is
attached herewith as Annexure No. 3.
15. It is submitted that in pursuance of the above
mentioned extension granted by the Ministry of Petroleum
and Natural Gas from time to time, the Respondent No. 4
issued a Letter dated 21.06.2021 informing the
Respondent No. 2 Corporation that the Respondent No. 4
had identified and arranged for suitable land in Boduppal,
Medipally Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District, Telangana.
WP_17123_2023
SN,J
Letter dated 21.06.2021 issued by Respondent No. 4 to
Respondent No. 2 is attached herewith as Annexure No. 4.
16. It is submitted that subsequently land site evaluation
was done for the land offered by Respondent. No.4 to
ascertain its techno commercial viability and since the land
was found to be techno commercially viable, the
Respondent No. 2 issued a fresh Letter of Intent dated
16.02.2022 offering a retail outlet dealership to be setup at
the site offered by Respondent No. 4 i.e. at Boduppal,
Medipally Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District. Thereafter
the Respondent No. 2 applied for no objection certificate
from the Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda and the
same was issued in favour of Respondent No. 2 for setting
up and operating a retail outlet at the site offered by
Respondent No. 4. Copy of the Letter of Intent dated
16.02.2022 and Copy of No Objection Certificate issued by
Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda are attached herewith
as Annexure No.5 and 6.
17. It is submitted that the Respondent No. 2 further
applied and procured Building Permit from Hyderabad
Metropolitan Development Authority on payment of Rs.
24.39 lakhs and thus after procuring all necessary
approvals, the Respondent No. 2 setup their retail outlet at
Boduppal, Medipally Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District,
Telangana. The Petitioner has failed to appreciate the fact
that the Respondent No. 2 has issued Letter of Intent in
favour of Respondent No. 4 after duly complying with all
existing laws and following the appropriate procedure and
WP_17123_2023
SN,J
any contentions made by the Petitioner contrary to the
same are denied as absolutely false and baseless. Copy of
Building Permit dated 31.03.2023 issued by HMDA is
attached herewith as Annexure No. 7.
18. It is submitted that the Respondent No.2 after getting
all statuary approvals has completed the construction of
the Retail Outlet with a capital expenditure of Rs. 1.48
crores. The Photographs of the Retail Outlet is attached as
Annexure No. 8, and further commissioned the Retail
Outlet by supplying the product on 31.05.2023, copy of the
invoice dated 31.05.2023 is attached as Annexure No. 9
The Petitioner with an ulterior motive is obstructing the
true benefit to reach the Respondent No. 4 who has been
awarded the dealership under the social objective scheme
of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, and she has
been waiting for realising this opportunity for past 11
years. The Respondent No. 2 will be put to hardship with
huge financial loss if the business operations are not
commenced immediately with the completely constructed
Retail Outlet.
19. The Petitioner has not shown as to how his
fundamental or legal rights are being violated due to the
operation of the retail outlet of the Respondent-2. A person
cannot claim independently that another person shall not
carry on business or trade so as to affect his trade or
business adversely. The Respondent has complied with the
statutory requirements for carrying on retail outlet
operations Petitioner had no locus standi to challenge to
WP_17123_2023
SN,J
Respondent, BPCL right for operating the retail outlet as no
right vested in the Petitioner which were violated or
affected due to the retail outlet of BPCL.
20. The Petitioner has failed to appreciate the fact that the
Respondent has procured approval from all concerned
authorities and that there is no requirement for the
Respondent No.2 to procure approval from other oil
marketing companies prior to issuing Letter of Intent to
any eligible candidate and the Petitioner has also not filed
rules/regulations in support of his contention. As the
Petitioner has failed to establish the manner in which the
issuance of Letter of Intent in favour of Respondent No. 4
is wrong, the present Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner is
liable to be dismissed.
D) The counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent
No.4, and in particular, para 8, reads as under:
"8. I submit that the petitioner herein on one hand is
claiming that he has no objection and is not quarrelling
with me, in setting up my retail outlet and on the other
hand is challenging the issuance of Letter of Intent in my
favour on absolutely false, frivolous and vexatious grounds
with the sole intention of avoiding any competition in the
same line of business in the same area where the
Respondent No.2 is intending to set up my proposed retail
outlet. I most humbly submit that the Hon'ble Apex Court
had categorically held that breaking the monopoly is not
wrongful in the eye of law, but a gain to the society. I most
WP_17123_2023
SN,J
humbly submit that the Hon'ble Apex Court in 1992 (1)
S.C.C. 168 categorically held that more operators mean
healthy completion. The petitioner has further falsely
contended that he is filing the instant writ petition as the
Respondent No.2 and myself are constituting retail outlet
in close proximity to the petitioner's retail outlet and that
the same is in violation of IRC Guidelines. Such contention
of the petitioner is denied as absolutely false baseless and
vexatious as the petitioner himself in another Writ Petition
bearing WP No.8020/2023 has contended that the IRC
Guidelines are not mandatory and not binding on the State
Authorities and basing upon such submissions made by the
petitioner, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to grant interim
Order dated 10.04.2023 in favour of the petitioner. The
petitioner is blowing hot and cold to suit his requirement."
4. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as per the
averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by
the petitioner in support of the present writ petition, is as
under:
a) Petitioner is an Entrepreneur and engaged in business and
the 3rd respondent issued Notification dated 14.12.2018 inviting
online application from the interested parties for appointment as
Retail outlet dealer at various locations in the state of Telangana.
In the said Notification, respondent No.3 identified and notified a
location between Boduppal 'X' Roads to Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Statue
WP_17123_2023
SN,J
on Boduppal Road not on 'NH' - Under open category in
Medchal-Malkajgiri District and the same was advertised. In
response to the said Notification the petitioner made an
application, along with three other applicants for the said
advertised site in Group-I (own land category) and the petitioner
was the 2nd highest bidder. Since the applicant with highest bid
value was disqualified, the petitioner was selected and the same
was communicated to the petitioner through e-mail on
19.02.2020 by the office of the 3rd respondent.
b) It is the further the case of the petitioner that the
petitioner complied with all the formalities as instructed by
respondent No.3 Oil Company including depositing of
Rs.50,000/- along with several documents and respondent No.3
also issued letter of intent on 24.02.2022. The petitioner spent
huge money in acquiring the land and infrastructure as per the
norms of the 3rd respondent. At this juncture, petitioner got to
know that respondent No.4 obtained permission from the
competent authority for establishing her Retail outlet in the State
of Telangana on transfer from the State of Gujarat, vide letter of
intent No.HRT-NRO-Boduppal dated 16.02.2022 and vide the
said letter of intent, the 4th respondent was offered Retail outlet
dealership at Plot Nos.1, 2, 5 (Part), 6 (part), survey No.133,
WP_17123_2023
SN,J
Boduppal village, Medipally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgir District,
Telangana State, Category Open (W) (Under Corpus Fund
Scheme).
c) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the
present writ petition mainly on the ground that the
petitioner is restrained from setting up of the Retail outlet
as the respondent No.4 Location is nearer to the
petitioner's location on the ground of IRC Guidelines and
since the respondent No.4 had started the civil work for
setting up of the Retail Outlet.
5. The leaned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner mainly put-forth the following submissions:
(i) Since the respondent No.4 location is nearer to the
petitioner location on the ground of IRC Guidelines, in
compelling situation petitioner would be restrained from
setting up of the Retail outlet.
(ii) The respondent No.4 had started civil work for
setting up of the Retail outlet.
(iii) The respondent No.2 ought not have issued letter of
Intent dated 16.02.2022 in favour of the 4th respondent for
setting up of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Retail
Outlet at the location between Boduppal 'X' Roads to
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Statue on Boduppal Road not on 'NH' for
which the petitioner was issued letter of Intent by
respondent No.3 dated 24.02.2022 pursuant to the
WP_17123_2023
SN,J
Notification dated 14.12.2018 contrary to the public
Notification dated 14.12.20018 issued by the respondent
No.3.
(iv) The action of the respondent No.2 is in clear violation
of principles of natural justice.
Basing on the aforesaid submissions the learned
counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is
entitled for the relief as prayed for herein.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd
respondent mainly put-forth the following submissions:
(i) The petitioner has not shown as to how petitioner's
fundamental or legal rights had been violated due to the
operation of the Retail outlet of respondent No.2.
(ii) The respondent No.2 has complied with the statutory
requirements for carrying on retail outlet operations.
(iii) The petitioner has no locus standi to challenge BPCL
Rights for operating the Retail outlet since no right vested
in the petitioner had been violated or affected due to the
retail outlet of BPCL.
(iv) The respondent No.2 had issued letter of Intent in
favour of respondent No.4 after duly complying with all
existing laws and following the appropriate procedure and
obtaining all statutory approvals, the respondent No.2
completed the construction of the Retail outlet with a
capital expenditure of Rs.1.48 crores.
WP_17123_2023
SN,J
(v) The 4th respondent had been awarded the dealership
under the social objective scheme of Ministry of Petroleum
and Natural Gas.
(vi) The petitioner failed to establish the manner in which
the issuance of letter of Intent in favour of respondent
No.4 is wrong.
(vii) The 4th respondent application was processed in lieu
of circular dated 12.04.2012 issued by the Ministry of
Petroleum and Natural Gas which is not only binding on
respondent No.2 but also on all other Oil marketing
companies such as respondent No.1 and 3 and hence there
is no irregularity in the manner in which respondent No.4's
application was processed.
Basing on the aforesaid submissions the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent
contends that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as
prayed for, in the present writ petition.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd
respondent submits that the petitioner was the 2nd
highest bidder in response to subject advertised site
between Boduppal 'X' Roads to Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Statue
on Boduppal road not on 'NH' under Open Category in
Medchal-Malkajgir District and since the applicant with
highest bid value was disqualified, the petitioner was
selected.
WP_17123_2023
SN,J
Basing on the aforesaid submissions the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent
contends that appropriate orders may be passed in the
present writ petition contending that the Guidelines
issued by IRC (Indian Roads Congress) are directory in
nature and not mandatory.
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th
respondent mainly puts-forth the following submissions:
(i) The 4th respondent being a citizen of India is entitled
to conduct any trade, profession or business in any part of
India as per Article 19(1)(g).
(ii) The 4th respondent as per Circular dated 12.04.2012
was issued letter of Intent in 4th respondent favour by
respondent No.2.
(iii) The petitioner with sole intention to avoid
competition in the same line of business in the same
area where the respondent No.2 is intending to set
up 4th respondent's proposed Retail outlet had filed
the present frivolous writ petition.
(iv) In W.P.No.8020 of 2023 the petitioner herein
contended that the IRC Guidelines are not mandatory and
not binding on State Authorities and obtained interim
orders in writ petitioner's favour whereas in the present
writ petition curiously a plea is taken by the writ petitioner
that the respondent No.4 location is nearer to the
petitioner's location on the ground of IRC Guidelines.
WP_17123_2023
SN,J
(v) There is no illegality in issuing letter of intent in
favour of the 4th respondent on 16.02.2022 which infact
fulfilled the social objective of the Ministry of Petroleum
and Natural Gas for the benefit of SC/ST, Widows or
Women above the age of 40 years without earning
parents.
(vi) There has been no violation of petitioner's legal
rights and the present writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner herein only to interfere with and stall the
business operations of the respondent No.2 and the 4th
respondent with malafide intention.
Based on the aforesaid submissions, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent sought
for dismissal of the present writ petition duly vacating the
interim orders granted in favour of the petitioner on
04.07.2023.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:
9. A bare perusal of the record clearly indicates that the
petitioner was selected for the Outlet Dealership pursuant to
application filed by the petitioner in response to Notification
dated 14.12.2018 issued by the respondent No.3, identifying and
notifying a location between Boduppal 'X' Roads to
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Statue on Boduppal road not on 'NH' under
Open Category in Medchal-Malkajgir District and petitioner was
WP_17123_2023
SN,J
issued letter of intent on 24.02.2022 by the 3rd respondent
herein and respondent No.2 was issued letter of Intent vide
No.HRT-NRO-Boduppal dated 16.02.2022, in favour of
respondent No.4 for setting up of Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Limited, Retail Outlet at the location between Boduppal 'X' Roads
to Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Statue on Boduppal road not on 'NH' under
Open Category (W) under Corpus Funds Scheme, on transfer
from State of Gujarat to State of Telangana.
10. It is specifically averred by the petitioner at para 3
of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the
present writ petition that the reason for the petitioner for
institution of the present writ petition is under compelling
circumstances, which are leading to restraining the
petitioner for setting up of the Retail Outlet as the
respondent No.4 location is nearer to the petitioner's
location on the ground of IRC Guidelines. It is also borne
on record that at para 4 of the affidavit filed by the
petitioner in support of the present writ petition it is
averred that since respondent No.4 was permitted to set
up her Retail outlet by way of transferring from Gujarat
State to Telangana State vide letter of Intent vide No.HRT-
NRO-Boduppal dated 16.02.2022, which is conflicting with
WP_17123_2023
SN,J
each other i.e., petitioner and 4th respondent herein, as a
result of which the petitioner was refused to issue NOC
from the competent authority referring to the distance
between two Retail Outlets and the petitioner was
constrained to file W.P.No.8020 of 2023 challenging the
rejection of the No objection Certificate issued by the
Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionarate,
Medchal-Malkajgir District, Hyderabad and the petitioner
obtained interim order in petitioner's favour directing the
2nd respondent thereunder to reconsider the letter of
respondent No.3 thereunder dated 24.02.2023 without
reference to the alleged distance between two fuel
stations locations i.e., location of respondent No.4 herein
and the petitioner herein.
11. This Court opines that petitioner having filed
W.P.No.8020 of 2023 and having obtained a direction in
favour of the petitioner's to reconsider the petitioner's
case without reference to the alleged distance between
two fuel stations locations i.e., location of respondent
No.4 and the petitioner herein has filed the present writ
petition contending that respondent NO.4 location is
WP_17123_2023
SN,J
nearer to the petitioner's location on the ground of IRC
Guidelines.
12. It is pertinent to note that the Guidelines of Indian
Road Congress are not mandatory and the said view had
been laid down in the Judgments given below:
(1) The Judgment of the High Court of Orissa
reported in 2017 SCC Online, Orissa 687 in "Indian
Oil Corporation Limited v. Collector and District
Magistrate, Jaipur and others".
(2) Judgment of Division Bench of Madya Pradesh
High Court in W.A.No.568 of 2014 in "Shailendra Vs.
Smt.Saroj Bhati".
(3) Judgment of Division Bench of Punjab & Hariyana
High Court in case of Environment Society of India,
Chandigarh Vs. Administrator, Chandigarh
Administration, Union Territory, Chandigarh",
reported in AIR 1998 Punjab & Hariyana, 94.
(4) Judgment of High Court of Alahabad in "Deepak
Agarwal Vs. State of U.P." reported in 2011 Vol.6
SCC 725 in Civil Miscellaneous W.P.No.27184 of
2013.
13. In view of all the aforesaid judgments, it would have
to be held that the Guidelines issued by the Indian Road
Congress are not mandatory and it is also not notified in
the Notification dated 14.12.2018 issued by the 3rd
WP_17123_2023
SN,J
respondent herein that the Guidelines set out by the
Indian Roads Congress would be applicable. In these
circumstances, the main contention put forth by the
petitioner at para 3 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner
in support of the present writ petition which is again
extracted hereunder cannot be accepted.
Para 3 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner
"...The reason for instituting the present Writ Petition
is under compelling situations which leading to restraining
the Petitioner from setting up of the Retail Outlet as the
Respondent No.4 location is nearer to the Petitioner's
location on the ground of IRC Guidelines."
14. The Division Bench of High Court of Alahabad in its
Judgment dated 17.12.2020 reported in 2020 SCC Online
Alahabad 1562 in "Prince Filling Station Vs. Union
Government of India", at paras 8 and 9 observed as
under:
"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
by a law enacted in the interests of general public.
WP_17123_2023
SN,J
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."
15. This Court in a Judgment reported in 2008 (1) ALD
page 138 in "Venkata Ramana Agencies, HPCL Dealers
Kakinada Vs. The District Collector, East Godavari,
Kakinada and others" dated 05.09.2007, placing reliance
on a four Judges Bench of the Apex Court in "J.M.Desai Vs.
Roshan Kumar dismissed the Writ Petition holding that a
writ petition is not maintainable at the instance of rival
dealer or rival trader.
16. The Apex Court in the Judgment reported on 1976
Vol.1 SCC, page 671 in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan
WP_17123_2023
SN,J
Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and other", in particular, at
para 46, 47 and 51 observed as under:
"46. Thus, in substance, the appellants' 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,
Juridically, harm of this description is called damnum sine
injuria, the term injuria being here used in its true sense of
an act contrary to law Salmond on Jurisprudence. 12th
edn. By Fitzgerald p. 357 para 85. 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.
47. 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
WP_17123_2023
SN,J
no locus standi to challenge the grant of the No Objection
Certificate.
51. For all the foregoing reasons, we are of opinion
that the appellant had no locus standi to invoke this
special jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution. Accordingly, we answer the question
posed at the commencement of this judgment, in the
negative and on that ground, without entering upon
the merits of the case, dismiss this appeal with
costs."
17. This Court opines that 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 General Public under
Article 19(6)(i). This Court is of the firm opinion that the
petitioner herein cannot independently seek to prevent
the fourth respondent from exercising 4th respondent
right to carry on business so as to affect petitioner's trade
or business adversely.
18. This Court opines that the Judgments relied upon by
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
do not apply to the facts of the present case.
WP_17123_2023
SN,J
19. Taking into consideration:
a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,
b) In the light of the discussion and reasoning as
arrived at as above,
c) Duly taking into consideration the specific averments
made by the petitioner at para 3 of the affidavit filed by
the petitioner in support of the present writ petition that
the respondent No.4 location is nearer to petitioner's
location on the ground of IRC Guidelines which is leading
to restraining the petitioner from setting up of the Retail
outlet,
d) Further taking note of the fact that the Guidelines
issued by the Indian Roads Congress are not mandatory
as held by various Courts in the judgments referred to and
extracted above at para 13,
e) Duly taking into consideration the observations of
the various Courts in the Judgments reported in (1) 2020
SCC Online Alahabad 1563 in "Prince Filing Station Vs.
Union Government of India", (2) 2008 (1) ALD Page 138
in "Venkata Ramana Agencies, HPCL Dealers Kakinada Vs.
The District Collector, East Godavari, Kakinada and
others", and (3) 1976 Vol.1 SCC, Page 671 in "Jasbhai
WP_17123_2023
SN,J
Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and
others", (referred to and extracted above),
f) Taking into consideration the averments made in the
counter affidavits filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2, 3
and 4,
g) The interim orders of this Court in favour of the
petitioner dated 10.04.2023 passed in W.P.No.8020 of
2023 were the alleged distance between two fuel stations
locations came up for consideration before this Court.
The Writ Petition is dismissed since the same is devoid of
merits and the interim order granted by this Court on
04.07.2023 stands vacated. However there shall be no
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________________
MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
Dated: 03.06.2024
Note: L.R. copy to be marked
b/o
yvkr
