ORDER : Petitioner –Trust has been running a Pre-University College at Vijaypura, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District, since the academic year 2004-2005 pursuant to the sanction/permission granted by the 2nd respondent-Director of Department of Pre-University Education vide Memorandum dated 15.09.2005 at Annexure-A to the Writ Petition. 2. The 4th respondent-Trust has been granted similar sanction/permission by the 1st respondent-Government vide Order No.ED-108 SHH 2016 Bengaluru dated 31.05.2016 at Annexure-D to the Writ Petition for establishing and running an educational institution ie., a P.U. College in the very same town. 3. Petitioner being aggrieved by the Government Order dated 31.05.2015, supra has presented this Writ Petition on the ground that, the District Official Inspection Committee did not recommend the case of the respondent; the institution in question does not have required infrastructure; the 2016 Government Circular discourages establishment of multiple colleges in the very same area and the order is contrary to law. 4. After service of notice the respondents have entered appearance through their counsel. They oppose the writ petition on the ground of its maintainability. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that establishment of one more institution would prejudice the interest of its institution and it may strike the very death knell. The law does not provide for establishment of one more institution in the very same locality vide 2016 Government Circular. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent-State and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent-Trust per contra submit that the writ petition does not lie in the absence of a legal right of public character not being shown to exist, much less its violation. The 4th respondent-Trust has a legal right to establish education institution and such right cannot be curtailed by the petitioner in the absence of statutory enablement. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposing parties. I have perused the writ petition papers. 8. It is a settled legal principle of writ remedies that the invoker of extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has to show that he has a legal right of public law character and that the same has been violated by the opposing parties without any justification. In the present case, no such right has been shown to exist in the petitioner. In the present case, no such right has been shown to exist in the petitioner. The question of violation of a right that does not exist, logically does not arise. Therefore, in the absence of such a right which is a sine quan on for exercise of writ jurisdiction, the writ petition is misconceived. 9. The contention of the petitioner that, the establishment of one more educational institution in the very same town would adversely affect petitioner’s business, is hit by the maxim ‘damnum sine injuria’. Centuries ago the English Court in the famous Gloucester Grammar School Masters Case (1410) Y B 11 Hen IV 27 in an identical fact matrix denied relief to the plaintiff, who had sought for an injunctive relief restraining the defendant therein from establishing a rival school. The principle in the said case squarely applies to the case of the petitioner herein. 10. The other contention of the petitioner that the institution established by the 4th respondent Trust lacks infrastructure and necessary facilities and that the jurisdictional Committee had not recommended its case, does not take petitioner’s case any further. The recommendations of the Committee by their very nature are not mandatory and the decision maker may decline to accept them in his wisdom. That per se is no ground for invalidating the impugned action. In the above circumstances, this writ petition fails. However, this order will not come in the way of petitioner seeking redressal of its grievance with the authorities, in accordance with law. Costs made easy.