In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner who is a licence holder of a saw mill, namely M/s Mobi Saw Mill has challenged the order of grant of licence of a saw mill in favour of respondent No.7, Shri Th. PishakSingh. 2.1 have heard Mr. RK Nakulsana, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. RS Reisang, the learned Govt Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos 2-6 and Mr. Ch. Joychandra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 7. 3. The Chief Inspector of Factories, Govt of Manipur issued a licence bearing registration No. 352 to the petitioner on 17.12.1982 and since then the petitioner has been running the saw mill in the locality known as Thangmeiband Hijam Dewan Leikai, Imphal. Another mill, namely M/s Rakesh Saw Mill in the name of one Shri Gouro Singh is also in the same locality at Imphal which was established in the year 1991. There is another saw mill under the name of M/s Samrat Timber Industries at Ghari village which is at the outskirts of Imphal Town whose proprietor was one Sitaram Nahawar, his licence being No. 441 and Serial Number being 351. The proprietorship of he mill and the licence was allowed to be transferred in the name of respondent No.7 and the location of the mill was also allowed to be shifted to Thangmeiband Hijam Dewan Leikai where the mill of the petitioner is also situated. Now, the petitioner has challenged the legality of the grant of licence/transfer of licence to the respondent No.7 and also the shifting of the saw mill from its original site at Ghari village to the present site at Imphal. 4. According to Mr. RK Nakulsana, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the transfer of licence was not done in accordance with the provisions of law and shifting of the location of the saw mill was also not done in accordance with the provisions of law and, further, according to the learned counsel, the licence granted in favour of respondent No. 7 at Annexure A/6 is not valid in the eye of law as the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories & Boilers, Govt of Manipur who granted the licence does not have the power or authority to grant such a licence. Against this, the learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the procedures followed by the authorities were in accordance with the provisions of law though there might have been slight irregularities which do not vitiate the entire procedure and thus the licence granted in favour of respondent No.7 cannot be said to be invalid. Both the learned counsel of the respondents have strongly submitted that in the present matter the petitioner has no locus standi to bring the present writ petition. 5. The Manipur Factories Rules, 1972 which has been framed under the Factories Act, 1948 prescribed various provisions regarding approval, licensing and registration of factories etc. Rule 3 prescribes about approval of plans. Rule 4 provides regarding application for registration and grant of licence. Under Rule 5 it is provided that a licence is to be granted by the Chief Inspector in Form No. 4 specified in the Schedule and under Rule 7 it is provided that licences may be renewed by the Chief Inspector. Again under Rule 8 there is provision for transfer of licences from one person to another. 6. In our present case, both the licences in the names of petitioner and respondent No. 7 were granted by the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories and the transfer/renewal of licences was also made by the Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers. The learned counsel on both the sides have not been able to clarify as to whether the power of the Chief Inspector was conferred upon the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories by the State Govt under the provisions of section 8 (2A) of the Factories Act, 1948. From Annexure A/2 and Annexure A/6 it is clear that the renewal or transfer or even registration of the factory was done by the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers. Though the learned Govt Advocate draw the attention of the Court to Annexure R/2 which is office memorandum dated 6.10.97 issued by the Director (Com & Ind), Manipur wherein it was stated that the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories may renew licences of all types of factory under the relevant Act. Thus, according to learned Govt Advocate original licence issued by the Chief Inspector was renewed by the Deputy Chief Inspector. Thus, according to learned Govt Advocate original licence issued by the Chief Inspector was renewed by the Deputy Chief Inspector. I am not impressed by this submission of the learned Govt Advocate because as required by the provisions of section 8 (2A) of the Factories Act, conferment of the power of the Chief Inspector may be made by the State Govt only by notification in the Official Gazette. But factually both the saw mills/factories or any other mill in^he State (as submitted by learned Govt Advocate) are functioning on the basis of licences renewed by the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories. 7. In the present case one of the most important point to be considered is whether the petitioner is a person aggrieved to be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Mr. Ch Joychandra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the e respondent No. 7 has strongly submitted that the present case arose out of trade rivalry in their business between the petitioner and the respondent No.7 and in such a case the petitioner is not a person aggrieved and as such he has no locus standi to invoke Certiorari jurisdiction of this Court. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the case of the Nagar Rice and Flour Mill & others vs. N. Teekappa Govvda & Bros & others reported in AIR 1971 SC 246 . In this case the Apex Court held that an owner of a rice mill can have no grievance against the grant of a permission for shifting of location of another rice mill on the ground that the previous sanction required by law was not obtained before shifting/change of the location. It was held at para 9 of the judgment as follows : “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 Govt 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 & Civil SuppHes was 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 & Civil SuppHes was obtained. Even if it be assumed that the previous sanctions has to be obtained from the authorities before the machinery is moved from its existing site, we fail to appreciate what grievance the respondent 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 restri- a ctions imposed by law in the interests of the general public under Article 19 (6) (i). “9. The learned counsel has also relied upon another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & others reported in AIR 1976 SC 578 . In this case the Apex Court relying upon the ratio of the decision of the above cited case ( AIR 1971 SC 246 ) held that the proprietor of a cinema theatre holding a licence for exhibiting cinematography films is not entitled to invoke the Certiorari jurisdiction ex debito justitiae to get a 'No-objection Certificate', granted under Rule 6 of the Bombay Cinema Rules, 1954 by the District Magistrate in favour of a rival in the trade, brought up and quashed on the ground that it suffers from a defect of jurisdiction. In this case Supreme Court held : “36. It will be seen that in the context of locus standi to apply for a writ of Certiorari, an applicant may ordinarily fall in any of these categories: (i) 'person aggrieved'; (ii) 'stranger'; (iii) busy body or meddlesome interloper. Persons in the last category are easily distinguishable from those coming under the first two categories. Such persons interfere in things which do not concern them. They masquerade as crusaders for justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. They indulge in the past time of meddling with the judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. They masquerade as crusaders for justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. They indulge in the past time of meddling with the judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often, they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity, while the ulterior 'intent of some applicants in this category, may be no more than spoking the wheels of administration. The High Court should do well to reject the applications of such busybodies at the threshold. 37. The distinction between the first and second categories of applicants, though real, is not always well demarcated. The first category has, as it were, two concentric zones; a solid central zone of certainty, and a grey outer circle of lessening certainty in a sliding centrifugal scale with an outermost nebulous figure of uncertainty. Applicants falling within the central zone are those whose legal rights have been infringed. Such applicants undoubtedly stand in the category of 'persons aggrieved.' In the grey outer circle the bounds which separate the first category from the second, intermix, interfuse and overlap increasingly in a centrifugal direction. All person in this outerzone may not be 'person aggrieved'. 38. To distinguish such applicants from 'strangers', among them, some broad tests may be deduced from the conspectus made above. These tests are not absolute ..and ultimate. Their efficacy varies according to the circumstances of the case,including the statutory context in which the matter falls to be considered. These are : Whether the applicant is a person whose legal right has been infringed? Has he suffered a legal wrong or injury, in the sense, that his interest, recognised by law, has been prejudicially and directly affected by the act or omission of the authority, complained of ? Is he a person who has suffered a legal grievance, a person "against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something, or wrongfully affected his title to something ? Has he a special and substantial grievance or inconvenience suffered by him incommon with the rest of the public? Was he entitled to object and be head by the authority-before it took the impugned action? Has he a special and substantial grievance or inconvenience suffered by him incommon with the rest of the public? Was he entitled to object and be head by the authority-before it took the impugned action? If so, was he prejudicially affected in the exercise of that right by the act of the usurpation of jurisdiction on the part of the authority? Is the statute, in the context of which the scope of the works 'person aggrieved' is being considered, a social welfare measure designed to lay down ethical or professional standards of conduct for the community? Or is it a statute dealing with private rights of particular individuals?" And the Apex Court continued : “39. Now let us apply these tests to the case in hand. The Act and the Rules with which we are concerned, are not designed to set norms of moral or professional conduct for the community at large or even a section thereof. They only regulate the exercise of private rights of an individual to carry on a particular business on his property. In this context, the expression 'person aggrieved' must receive a strict construction. 40. Did the appellant have a legal right under the statutory provisions or under the general law which has been subjected to or threatened with injury? The answer in the circumstances of the case must necessarily be in the negative.” 10. In the case at hand it is evidently clear that the present matter arose out of business competition. In such an open competition in business or trade one does not have any grievance even if he suffers some pecuniary loss. In the eye , of law it is not an actionable wrong and as such there is no cause of action, thus no remedy lies. In our case applying the law as decided by the Apex Court (supra), I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner is not a person aggrieved and thus he has no locus stand! to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. With the above observation, the writ petition stands dismissed with no costs. 12. Before parting, it is apposite to note here that in this case there are some official correspondences viz from Add! to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. With the above observation, the writ petition stands dismissed with no costs. 12. Before parting, it is apposite to note here that in this case there are some official correspondences viz from Add! Director of Industries (Tech), Manipur (Annexure A/4), Deputy Secretary, Department of Commerce & Industries (Annexure A/7), Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Manipur (Annexure A/8) and General Manager, District Industries Centre, Imphal (Annexure A/11) concerning the grant of licence by the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, necessity of approval from Forest Department in respect of grant of licence/registration of wood based industries, clearance from High Power Committee and the objection regarding location of the mill. These are matters to be sorted out at the department level of the Govt by the concerned authorities in accordance with law. In this regard concerned authorities are to take appropriate action so that grant of licence is regulated in accotdance with law and licence is issued by the proper authority under law.