Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1292 (ALL)

Rinki Gupta v. State Of U. P.

2020-11-05

SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State -respondents, Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vivekanand Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no.5. 2. The petitioner is running a retail outlet of Indian Oil Corporation in Village -Bodarwar, Tehsil -Hata, District -Kushinagar. The petitioner is challenging the opening of another retail outlet at a nearby place by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. which is to be run by allottee i.e. the respondent no.5. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 5 have raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi and being a rival, the writ petition is not maintainable at his behest. In support of their submissions they relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in D.C.M. Shri Ram Industries Ltd. and another vs. State of U.P. and others, 2007 4 ADJ 150 (para 26) and judgment dated 13.5.2011 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.54670 of 2009 (M/s. Luheta Urja Kendra and another Vs. Union of India and others. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an aggrieved person inasmuch the respondent nos. 2 and 5 are opening the petrol pump near to the petrol pump of the petitioner. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties on the preliminary objection. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner is running a petrol pump. By means of present writ petition he is opposing the establishment of another petrol pump near his petrol pump. Thus, the whole effort of the petitioner by means of this writ petition is to stop a new operator coming in the field as his competitor. The petitioner has no fundamental or statutory right to stop another operator coming in business near his petrol pump. 7. In Nagar Rice and Flour Mills Vs. N.T. Gowda (1970) 1 SCC 575 it was held that a rice mill owner has no locus standi to challenge under Article 226 the setting up a new rice mill by another for the reason that none of his vested rights are infringed. 8. A similar view was taken in the decisions in Jas Bhai Moti Bhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar (1976) 1 SCC 671 and Mithilesh Garg and other Vs. 8. A similar view was taken in the decisions in Jas Bhai Moti Bhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar (1976) 1 SCC 671 and Mithilesh Garg and other Vs. Union of India and others (1992) 1 SCC 168 . 9. We are not inclined to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction where the claim of the petitioner is essentially aimed at eliminating healthy competition and for perpetuating his monopoly in the area. 10. For all the reasons aforestated, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground that petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition.