Judgment :- 1. The defendant-appellant aspires to establish a private market in a plot of land - the B schedule property - belonging to him within the area of jurisdiction of the Perumatty Panchayat. He made an application to the Panchayat for the requisite licence under the Kerala Panchayats Act and the Kerala Panchayats (Public and Private Markets) Rules, 1964 The Panchayat had published Ext. A23 notification dated 17-2-1978 inviting objections and the application for licence is pending. It is at that stage that the plaintiff who is running a private market in the A schedule property under a licence issued by the adjoining Pattancheri Panchayat filed the suit for a declaration that the defendant has no right to run a market in, his B schedule property or in any other place within 3 kilometres of the plaintiff's market so long as be holds a licence to run a private market, and also for an injunction to restrain the defendant from establishing a private market in his B schedule property. The plaintiff has filed objections in response to Ext. A23 notification. According to the plaintiff the B schedule property of the defendant situated within the area of jurisdiction of the adjoining Perumatty Panchayat is only 10 feet away from the A schedule property of the plaintiff where he is running a private market under licence issued by the Pattanchery Panchayat. The plaintiff relies on R.26 of the Kerala Panchayats (Public and Private Markets) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) in support of his contention that no new private market can be opened within a distance of 3 kilometres from his private market in the A schedule property. 2. The defendant in his written statement questioned the plaintiff's right to maintain the suit and contended that he proposes to establish a private market in his B schedule property only after obtaining a licence from the Perumatty Panchayat and in accordance with the terms and conditions thereof. His application for licence is pending before the Perumatty Panchayat and the question of issue of a licence to him will be decided by the Panchayat only after considering the objections submitted by the plaintiff in pursuance to the notification Ext. A23. 3. Neither of the Panchayats is a party to the suit and the plaintiff seeks relief against the defendant only. A23. 3. Neither of the Panchayats is a party to the suit and the plaintiff seeks relief against the defendant only. Both the courts below have held that the suit as framed is maintainable. The trial court granted a decree as prayed for. The decretal portion of the judgment of the trial court is extracted below: "In the result the suit is decreed and the defendant is restrained by a permanent injunction from conducting any market in the plaint B schedule property so long as the plaintiff has got a valid licence to conduct a market in the plaint A schedule property. The plaintiff will also be entitled to get his costs from the defendant." This decree of the trial court is confirmed by the lower appellate court. The defendant is thus injuncted from conducting a private market in the B schedule property belonging to him. 4. Private markets are regulated under the Kerala Panchayats Act and the rules issued thereunder. S.86 of the Act enacts that no person shall open a new private market or continue to keep open a private market unless he has obtained a licence from the Panchayat to do so. The licence is for a period of one year and should be got renewed every year Sub-s. (2) empowers the Panchayat to impose conditions under which licences are to be issued. The Panchayat is also empowered to suspend or cancel a licence granted for breach of the conditions of the licence. It is also empowered to refuse renewal of a licence if it is satisfied that the licence cannot be renewed in the interests of the public. Sub-s. (5) empowers the Panchayat or an officer duly authorised by it to close down a private market which is unlicensed or the licence of which bad been suspended or cancelled. S.109 and 119 of the Act contain provisions for enforcement of the conditions of the licence and for prosecution for any violation thereof. R.8 relates to applications for licences to open a new private market or to continue an existing private market and bow the applications are to be dealt with by the licensing authority. The rule provides for a notification calling for objections and the objections to be considered before deciding upon the issue of the licence applied for. R.26 is extracted below: Distance between markets. The rule provides for a notification calling for objections and the objections to be considered before deciding upon the issue of the licence applied for. R.26 is extracted below: Distance between markets. A Panchayat shall not except with the prior sanction of the Director of Panchayats open a new public market nor issue licence for a private market if the site for such market is within a distance of three Kilometres from a public or private market already existing or functioning in any Panchayat under the Kerala Panchayats Act. Provided in the case of an evening market such distance limit shall be 1.5 Kilometres from any other existing evening market " 5. There is no absolute bar under R.26 against the issue of a licence for a private market within a distance of 3 Kilometres mentioned therein. The only restriction is the requirement of a prior sanction of the Director of Panchayats for the licensing and opening of a new private market within the aforesaid distance of 3 Kilometres. If the requirements of the locality warrant, there is nothing preventing the Director of Panchayats from permitting the licensing and opening of a new private market not far away from an existing licensed market. All the provisions of the Act and the Rules referred to above are to safeguard public interest and not for the purpose of protecting the commercial interests of the holder of a private market licence. 6. Referring to Art.19 of the Constitution the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Krishan Kumar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (AIR 1967 SC 1368) stated at page 1371: "(11)A combined reading of cls. (1) and (6) of Art.19 makes it clear that a citizen has a fundamental right to carry on any trade or business, and the State can make a law imposing reasonable restrictions on the said right in the interests of the general public." In a case relating to the objection by a rival trader against the grant of a licence under the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act. 1958, the Supreme Court in the decision in The Nagar Rice and Flour Mills and others v. N. Teekappa Gowda & Bros. and others (AIR. 1971 SC. 1958, the Supreme Court in the decision in The Nagar Rice and Flour Mills and others v. N. Teekappa Gowda & Bros. and others (AIR. 1971 SC. 246) stated at page 250: "The right to carry on business being a fundamental right under Art.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 Art.19(6)(i). 10. S.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 Art.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." In K. R Shenoy v. Udipi Municipality (AIR 1974 SC 2177) the Supreme Court stated at page 2181: "25 In order to succeed in an action for damages for breach of statutory duty the plaintiff must establish a breach of a statutory obligation which, on the proper construction of the statute was intended to be a ground of civil liability to a class of persons of whom he is one. He must establish an injury or damage of a kind against which the statute was designed to give protection." It is further stated at the same page: "27. The right to build on his own land is a right incidental to the ownership of that land. Within the Municipality the exercise of that right has been regulated in the interest of the community residing within the limits of the Municipal Committee, If under pretence of any authority which the jaw does give to the Municipality it goes beyond the line of its authority, and infringes or violates the rights of others, it becomes like all other individuals amenable to the jurisdiction of the Courts. If sanction is given to build by contravening a bye-law the jurisdiction of the Courts will be invoked on the ground that the approval by an authority of building clans which contravene the bye-laws made by that authority is illegal and inoperative (See Yabbicom v. King (18991 QB 444)." Considering the question whether the proprietor of a cinema theatre holding a licence for exhibiting cinematograph films is entitled to invoke certiorari jurisdiction against a no objection certificate granted under R.6 of the Bombay Cinema Rules, 1954 in favour of a rival in the trade the Supreme Court in Jasbhai Desai v Roshan Kumar (1976) 3 SCR 58) stated at page 73: "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 barm and loss of business from competition. Such barm 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, barm of this description is called damnum sine injuria, 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." The mere fact that the commercial interests of the plaintiff will suffer if a licence is granted to the defendant to run a private market in the B schedule property is not a ground for injuncting the defendant from obtaining a licence and running a private market in his own land. As earlier stated, the provisions in the Act and the Rules adverted to above are not for the purpose of protecting the commercial interests of a trader in the same business. Those provisions are made in the public interest for the purpose of regulating private markets by the issue of licences in that behalf. The application for licence submitted by the defendant to the concerned Panchayat is already notified calling for objections. R.8 referred to above requires the licensing authority to consider the objections before a licence is issued for the opening of a new private market. The application for licence submitted by the defendant to the concerned Panchayat is already notified calling for objections. R.8 referred to above requires the licensing authority to consider the objections before a licence is issued for the opening of a new private market. The restriction relating to the distance in R.26 can also be waived in appropriate cases by the Director of Panchayats as provided for in the rule itself For the aforesaid reasons the decree for injunction granted against the defendant cannot be sustained. I therefore set aside the judgments and decrees of the courts below and dismiss the suit. The second appeal is allowed with costs throughout.