Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1443 (ALL)

Amir Kumar Mishra v. Union Of India

2020-12-07

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, PRAKASH PADIA

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition inter-alia with the prayer to issue a mandamus directing the respondents to decide the pending representation. A further prayer has also been made in the writ petition to direct the respondents not to issue final allotment letter for retail outlet dealership for village Pasna, Tehsil Koraon on Meja to Koran M.D.R. Road, Prayagraj in favour of the respondent No.4. 2. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd./respondent No.2 issued an advertisement on 14.10.2014 inviting online applications for allotment of regular and rural retail outlet dealership through draw of lots for various Districts in the State of U.P. The petitioner has also submitted his online application form for allotment of retail outlet dealership and he was allotted a retail outlet dealership in the location namely village Pasna, Tehsil Koraon, District Prayagraj. In this regard, a letter of intent was also issued in his favour by respondent-corporation on 25.08.2018. It is stated that retail outlet dealership of the petitioner is situated at M.D.R. 121, Sirsa-Koraon Road between milestone 24 kms.to 26 kms. The petitioner stated his retail outlet dealership in the name and style J.K.Automobiles, at Village Pasna, Tehsil Koraon, Meja Road, Prayagraj. It is further stated that the retail outlet dealership of the petitioner is situated in a rural area where the sale of petroleum product is not very good. It is stated that respondent No.4 namely Sri Vivek Shukla, started the construction of boundary wall of his petrol pump in village Pasna and during the course of inquiry, the petitioner came to know that Sri Vivek Shukla has also allotted retail outlet dealership in his favour by respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. In this regard, the petitioner further came to know that an advertisement was also issued by the respondent-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. on 24.12.2018 in which details of petrol pump, which was allotted in favour of respondent No.4, was mentioned at Serial No.2052. It is further stated that in spite of best efforts, the petitioner could not get the copy of the letter of intent issued in favour of respondent No.4 and when the respondent No.4 started construction of boundary wall of the retail outlet dealership, he came to know regarding his selection for location in question. 3. It is further stated that in spite of best efforts, the petitioner could not get the copy of the letter of intent issued in favour of respondent No.4 and when the respondent No.4 started construction of boundary wall of the retail outlet dealership, he came to know regarding his selection for location in question. 3. After the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid facts, he made a representation dated 22.08.2020 addressed to the Chief Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd./respondent No.3 vide registered post on 24.08.2020. Since no action was taken as such, a letter in the shape of reminder was also made by the petitioner before respondent No.3 on 12.09.2020 and when no action was taken on the same, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that a retail outlet dealership has been allotted in favour of the petitioner by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. itself in the rural area where sale is not good and if, a new retail outlet dealership, which is allotted in favour of respondent No.4, will affect the business of the petitioner. It is further argued that the petitioner has invested huge amount in his petrol pump before starting business. It is further argued that the retail outlet dealership was allotted in favour of the respondent No.4 only due to his political connection with ruling party. 5. On the other hand, it is argued that allotment of retail outlet dealership in favour of respondent No.4 is absolutely perfect and valid and after completing all the formalities as required in law. It is further argued that the law laid down by this Court as well as by the Apex Court, the petitioner does not fall within the definition of “Aggrieved Person” and it is kind of business rivalry, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Undisputedly, the petitioner is a mere rival in trade. The establishment of a competing business which may have an adverse impact on his profitability cannot give rise to a legal wrong. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Undisputedly, the petitioner is a mere rival in trade. The establishment of a competing business which may have an adverse impact on his profitability cannot give rise to a legal wrong. Such actions are clearly barred on the principle of damnum sine injuria which essentially holds that the law does not recognize any remedy unless it is established that the person had suffered a legal wrong or to put it differently a wrong which is recognised or is recognizable in law. In the case of Jasbhai Motibhai DesaiVs. Roshan Kumar and others [ (1976) 1 SCC 671 ], the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 47 & 48 held following principles:- “47. 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 harm and loss of business from competition. Such harm 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. Juridical, harm of this description is called damnum sine injuries, 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. 48. In the light of the above discussion, it is demonstrably clear that the appellant has not been denied or deprived of a legal right. He has not sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In fact, the impugned order does not operate as a decision against him, much less does it wrongfully affect his title to something. He has not been subjected to a legal wrong. He has suffered no legal grievance. He has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on. Therefore he is not a 'person aggrieved' and has no locus standi to challenge the grant of the no-objection Certificate.” 8. Apart from the same, law in this connection is well settled that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the advertisement being rival businessman. He has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on. Therefore he is not a 'person aggrieved' and has no locus standi to challenge the grant of the no-objection Certificate.” 8. Apart from the same, law in this connection is well settled that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the advertisement being rival businessman. This controversy has already been decided in large number of cases not only by Apex Court but also different High Courts. Reference of some cases are AIR 1971 SC 246 (The Nagar Rice and Flour Mills and others Vs. N. Teekappa Gowda & Bros. and others), AIR 1976 SC 578 (Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and others), AIR 1990 Madras 87 (FB) (M.L. Krishnamurthy and etc. Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Vellore and another), AIR 1981 Gauhati 36 (Ganesh Chandra Hazarika Vs. State of Assam and others). 9. The Division Bench of this Court in the cases of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39125 of 2007 (M/s. Kisan Seva Kendra Vs. State of U.P. & ors.) and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15351 of 2011 (Manoj Kumar Vs. Union of India and others) delivered on 22nd August, 2007 and 14th March, 2011 respectively held that when the petitioner wants that a competitor should not carry on any similar business near his business place, such type of disputes between the parties can be adjudicated by the civil Court provided any appropriate suit for injunction is filed. This Court can not interfere with the same particularly when the question of supplying essential commodities is involved. 10. In view of the facts as narrated above and the law laid down by the Supreme Court as well as this Court, we do not find any reason to pass any affirmative order in favour of the petitioner in the writ petition. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed, however, no order is passed as to costs.