Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1293 (ALL)

Usha Filling Station v. Union Of India

2025-11-04

SARAL SRIVASTAVA, SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN

body2025
JUDGMENT : (Per-Hon'ble Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) 1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 5 and 6 and Sri Komal Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4. 2. The controversy involved in the present writ petition is that the petitioner is an authorized dealer of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited having a retail outlet at Arazi No. 430, Village Kakrait, Pargana-Narwan, Tehsil-Sadar, District Chandauli and is carrying on the business since 14.7.2020. 3. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited-respondent no.2 had published an advertisement on 28.6.2023 amongst others for grant of Rural Retail Outlet Dealership at the location Village Kakrait to Kandawa (including both villages) on Kakrait to Kandawa Road (not on National Highway), District Chandauli for the reserved category of scheduled caste. In this regard the respondent no.7 had proposed to set up a retail outlet on land measuring 2091.078 square meters comprised in Arazi No. 412, Mauza Kakrait, Pargana-Narwan, Tehsil-Sadar, District Chandauli. 4. The respondent no. 7 was selected for the said outlet on 27.12.2023. Subsequent thereto the respondent no.4 had issued the letter of intent dated 7.6.2024 in favour of respondent no.7 in respect of the aforesaid retail outlet. 5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the new retail outlet has not been established at the location advertised and petitioner is already running a retail outlet since 14.07.2020 and the same is hardly 200 meters away from Arazi No. 412 where the retail outlet of the respondent no.2-corporation has been awarded to the respondent no.7 and such an allotment is in violation of the Uttar Pradesh Guidelines for Issuance of NOC for Setting-up Fuel Stations along U.P. P.W.D. Road-2022 6. Under these circumstances, the petitioner had filed a representation dated 18.6.2024 before respondent no.5 essentially stating that the aforesaid retail outlet was to be located on Kakrait-Kandawa Road but the same is located on Jamania-Kakrait Road which is not in accordance with advertisement and also that the selection is in contravention to the aforesaid Guidelines-2022. 7. Under these circumstances, the petitioner had filed a representation dated 18.6.2024 before respondent no.5 essentially stating that the aforesaid retail outlet was to be located on Kakrait-Kandawa Road but the same is located on Jamania-Kakrait Road which is not in accordance with advertisement and also that the selection is in contravention to the aforesaid Guidelines-2022. 7. However, as no decision was taken on the representation so made by the petitioner by the respondent no.5, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing Writ-C No. 23482 of 2024 and the same was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 22.10.2024 thereby directing the respondent no.5 to decide the representation of the petitioner after granting opportunity of hearing to all the concerned including the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of the order. 8. In pursuance to the directions of this Court the respondent no.5 vide order dated 9.6.2025, morefully annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, had rejected the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner has filed Writ-C No. 19813 of 2025 challenging the order dated 9.6.2025 passed by the respondent no.5. 9. The petitioner has filed another Writ-C No. 20276 of 2025 challenging the order dated 18.6.2025 issued by District Magistrate, Chandauli-respondent no.5 inter-alia granting no objection certificate to the respondent no.2- corporation to set up a retail outlet at Arazi No. 412, Village Kakrait, Pargana-Narwan, Tehsil-Sadar, District Chandauli. 10. Thereafter the petitioner has also filed Writ-C No.33099 of 2025 seeking a writ of mandamus directing Deputy Chief Controller of Explosive, Allahabad (respondent no.2 in the said writ petition) to decide the objections of the petitioner dated 23.7.2025 against the grant of no objection certificate by the Department of Explosive in respect of the retail outlet to be established by respondent no.7 at Arazi No. 412 in Village Kakrait, Pargana-Narwan, Tehsil-Sadar, District Chandauli. 11. At the very outset, learned counsel for the states that the petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the order dated 9.6.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Chandauli under challenge in Writ-C No.19813 of 2025. The other two writ petitions arise out of the no objection certificate dated 18.6.2025 granted by the District Magistrate, Chandauli and objections raised by the petitioner before the Department of Explosives in respect of the retail outlet of the respondent no.7. The other two writ petitions arise out of the no objection certificate dated 18.6.2025 granted by the District Magistrate, Chandauli and objections raised by the petitioner before the Department of Explosives in respect of the retail outlet of the respondent no.7. Hence, the outcome of the subsequent writ petitions hinges upon the final outcome of the controversy involved in Writ-C No. 19813 of 2025. Under these circumstances, with the consent of the counsel for petitioner the subsequent writ petitions bearing Writ-C No.20276 of 2025 and Writ-C No. 33099 of 2025 are dismissed as not pressed. 12. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.6.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Chandauli-respondent no.5 essentially on the ground that as per the report submitted by the revenue authorities the proposed location of the retail outlet to be set up by the respondent no.7 is at a location different from the advertised location. Further the location of the retail outlet of the respondent no.7 is on Jamania-Kakrait Road and not on the advertised location at Kakrait-Kandawa Road (not on National Highway) and the aforesaid fact is also evident from the report submitted by the Public Works Department. It has further been alleged that the order dated 9.6.2025 suffers from serious illegality, non application of mind and is perverse. 13. On perusal of the impugned order dated 9.6.2025 passed by the respondent no.5 it is revealed that the same has been passed after taking into consideration the representation of the petitioner, submission of the respondent no.7, the concerned Executive Engineers of Public Works Department, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chandauli and the representatives Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.-respondent no.2 and also after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to all the concerned. The District Magistrate, Chandauli-respondent no.5 after considering the contention of all the parties concerned has arrived at the following conclusion :- 14. The perusal of the writ petition further reveals that the petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the setting up of the retail outlet by the respondent no.7 allegedly within 200 meters of the retail outlet of the petitioner. Other than above no cogent reason has been assigned as to how the petitioner is aggrieved by the setting up of the retail outlet by the respondent no.7 at the aforesaid location. 15. Hence, it is beyond doubt that the allotment of the retail outlet in favour of respondent no. Other than above no cogent reason has been assigned as to how the petitioner is aggrieved by the setting up of the retail outlet by the respondent no.7 at the aforesaid location. 15. Hence, it is beyond doubt that the allotment of the retail outlet in favour of respondent no. 7 is likely to affect the business of the petitioner. Undisputedly, the petitioner is merely a rival in trade of respondent no. 7. The establishment of a competing business which, may have an adverse impact on the profitability of the petitioner cannot give rise to a legal wrong. Such actions are clearly barred by the principle of damnum sine injuria, which essentially holds that the law does not recognize any remedy unless it is established that the person has suffered a legal wrong or, to put it differently, a wrong which is recognized or is recognizable in law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar and others [ (1976) 1 SCC 671 ], had held as under:- "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. 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." 16. The Hon'ble Sureme Court in the case of Mithilesh Garg vs. Union of India is AIR 1992 SC 443 , where a similar controversy was raised in respect of grant of new carrier permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the scheme was challenged by the existing operators, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as under :- "The apprehensions of the petitioners, that too many operators on a route are likely to affect adversely the interest of weaker section of the profession is without any basis. The transport business is bound to be ironed out ultimately by the rationale of demand and supply. Cost of a vehicle being as it is the business requires huge investment. The intending operators are likely to be conscious of the economics underlying the profession. Only such number of vehicles would finally remain in operation on a particular route as are economically viable. In any case the transport system in a state is meant for the benefit and convenience of the public. The policy to grant permits liberally under the Act is directed towards the said goal. The petitioners who are already in the business want to keep the fresh entrants out of it and as such eliminate the healthy com-petition which is necessary to bring efficiency in the trade." 17. A similar view has also been held by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 07.12.2020 passed in Writ-C No. 17754 of 2020 (Amir Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India & Ors.) , wherein the subject matter in dispute related to setting up of a new retail outlet dealership of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited in the vicinity of the existing retail outlet of the petitioner. 18. Thus in view of above, we are of the view that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the allotment of the retail outlet in favour of respondent no.7. 19. 18. Thus in view of above, we are of the view that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the allotment of the retail outlet in favour of respondent no.7. 19. We, further notice that the petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the location of the retail outlet of the respondent no.7, the same being not in terms of the advertisement and also in respect of the distance of the said retail outlet from the retail outlet of the petitioner. Hence, it is beyond doubt that dispute involved in the present controversy involve pure questions of fact. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a dispute could not be raised by way of a writ petition on disputed questions of fact. Though, the jurisdiction of High Court is wide but in respect of disputes arising out of purely contractual matters in the field of private law, having no statutory flavor, are better adjudicated by forums adjudicating disputes between the private parties under common law. 20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. M.K. Jose (2015) 9 SCC 433 in respect of contractual disputes involving disputed questions fact had held as under:- 13. A writ court should ordinarily not entertain a writ petition, if there is a breach of contract involving disputed questions of fact. The present case clearly indicates that the factual disputes are involved. 14. In State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd. 6 , a two-Judge Bench reiterating the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of enforcement of contractual obligations has stated: (SCC p. 217, para 3) "3.... It is to be reiterated that writ petition under Article 226 is not the proper proceedings for adjudicating such disputes. Under the law, it was open to the respondent to approach the court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief for breach of contract. It is settled law that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to the litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Equally, the existence of alternative remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the court to issue writ, but ordinarily that would be a good ground in refusing to exercise the discretion under Article 226." 21. Equally, the existence of alternative remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the court to issue writ, but ordinarily that would be a good ground in refusing to exercise the discretion under Article 226." 21. Undoubtedly the dispute regarding the location of a retail outlet of the respondent no.7 on a particular road and the distance of the retail outlet of the respondent no.7 from the retail outlet of the petitioner is a disputed question of fact, which can only be adjudicated only after respective parties have adduced the evidence in support of their respective case. Under these circumstances, it would not be proper to adjudicate such a dispute involving pure questions of fact in the present writ petition 22. That it would not be out of place to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been of the persistent view that contract entered into between the private parties are not subject to scrutiny under writ jurisdiction. No doubt, the bodies which are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution are bound to act fairly and are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of superior courts but this discretionary power must be exercised with a great deal of restraint and caution. The Court must realize their limitations and the havoc which needless interference in commercial matters can cause. In fact, the courts must give "fair play in the joints" to the government and public sector undertaking in the matters of contract. Courts must also not interfere where such interference will cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer. It is for this reason as well that we deem it fit not to interfere with the impugned order dated 09.06.2025, other than for the reasons already detailed above. 23. In view of the foregoing, the writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed . There shall be no order as to costs.