1. The instant appeal is a classical example of the age old principle known as "damnum sine injuria". In other words, when a party set up a rival business enterprise then the one already engaged in that business cannot make a complaint that his rights have been infringed by the rival business enterprise as he would face stiff competition. The aforesaid phrase would mean that there is damage but without causing any actionable injury (See Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed, (1976) 1 SCC, 671). 2. The appeal has been preferred by Hotel Palace, Aabi-Karpora, Dal Lake Srinagar, against the judgment dated 12.03.2010 rendered by learned Single judge. There is a rival group of hotelier known as Hotel International, Sonawar Bagh, Srinagar which is run by Shri Gh. Nabi Aali Kadli, who is the first cousin of Manzoor Ahmad Aali Kadli of Hotel Palace. Shri Manzoor Ahmad Aali Kadli raised objection to the additions of rooms and Halls to Hotel International, bringing its capacity to 101 rooms, 11 Halls and one dining hall. He also complained that it would adversely affect his business. Thereafter, an order was passed by Deputy Director Tourism (Registration), whereby registration has been accorded to the additional block of Hotel International. The aforesaid order was challenged by the appellant-Hotel Palace before the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal by filing revision petition under Section 27 of the J&K Registration of Tourist Trade Act, 1978 (for brevity the Act). The Tribunal, vide order dated 21.08.2006, set aside the registration of the new block of Hotel International by holding as under:- "Now the question remains whether the registration could be granted to the additional block of international Hotel or not. The facts speak very clearly that there was series of litigation in respect of the offending building. The permission had not been granted by the BOCA and even demolition notice had been issued against it. The matter has even gone to the Hon'ble High Court where contempt petitions are still reported to be under process. In this backdrop prudence demanded that the registration, if granted, should not have been granted until the legality of the building is decided by the Civil Court and also by this Special Tribunal. Granting registration in such a set of circumstances amounts to a grave error of law. In this backdrop prudence demanded that the registration, if granted, should not have been granted until the legality of the building is decided by the Civil Court and also by this Special Tribunal. Granting registration in such a set of circumstances amounts to a grave error of law. Accordingly, I have no option but to set aside the registration if granted to the new block of the international hotel. In case the same has not been issued so far, then it shall be presumed to have been kept in abeyance till the Civil Court and Hon'ble High Court finally decide the cases pertaining to the offending building and also till such time the appeal against the demolition notice pending before this Tribunal is formally decided. Any correction made by the Tourism Department in the concerned register in this connection shall also stand automatically cancelled and declared illegal, unwarranted and bad in law. Send down the record along with copy of this order. File of this Tribunal be consigned to the records after due completion. Slav order if issued shall stand vacated." 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, Gh. Nabi Aali Kadli of Hotel International filed OWP no. 738/2006 relatable to this appeal, which has been allowed by the impugned judgment dated 12.03.2010, holding that once the Hotel of the writ petitioner-respondent stands registered under Section 10 of the Act, then the only obligation cast by Section 39 of the Act on a hotelier is that in case of any change it must be notified to the concerned authority and the prescribed authority is in turn obliged to make necessary changes in the register maintained for the purpose and the certificate of registration. The learned Single Judge noticed Section 39 and found that the writ petitioner-respondent fulfil all the necessary conditions for registration. 4. In so far as the question of un-authorised construction alleged to have been raised by the writ petitioner-respondent is concerned, the matter is pending before the Civil Court and has to be decided separately. The writ petitioner- respondent has taken the stand in the Civil Court that according to the statutes if sanction of the building site plan has not been accorded within specified period then it is deemed to be sanctioned. All the aforesaid arguments sought to be raised by the counsel for the appellant have been rejected. 5. The writ petitioner- respondent has taken the stand in the Civil Court that according to the statutes if sanction of the building site plan has not been accorded within specified period then it is deemed to be sanctioned. All the aforesaid arguments sought to be raised by the counsel for the appellant have been rejected. 5. We have heard Mr. Makhdoomi, learned counsel for the appellant at a considerable length and are of the view that the instant appeal is devoid of merit. 6. There is in fact a doubt whether the appellant has any locus standi because if he has a right to set up his business, respondent no. 6 would also be equally entitled. It may result into stiff competition and loss of business of the appellant but damages so suffered would not arm the appellant with a cause of action because, legally speaking, no injury has been caused. Thus 'damnum sine injuria' would apply. Of course, if there is no illegality committed in raising construction by respondent no. 6 then the matter has to be considered by the appropriate authority. It has already come on record that the matter concerning un-authorised construction is pending before the Civil Court and the learned Single Judge has rightly left that issue open for decision by the appropriate forum. 7. The appeal thus does not merit admission and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. However, we make it clear that any observation made in this order shall not be considered as an expression of opinion on the merit of the litigation pending before Civil Court or at any other forum.