AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjay K. Agrawal, CJ:
Invoking the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 (for short ‘the Rules of 1952’), the appellant-writ petitioner has preferred this writ appeal calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment and order dated 07.08.2023, by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition finding no merit, observing that the writ petitioner has no locus to file the writ petition.
The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop:
The writ petitioner has filed the writ petition questioning the order dated 03.05.2017, issued by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short ‘the BPCL’) in favour of respondent No.7, by which the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Government of India has issued a proposal for grant of access permission to a new retail outlet of BPCL at village, Akadara, tehsil Sumerpur, District Pali.
The writ petitioner has further challenged the No Objection Certificate issued by the competent authority in favour of respondent No.7 and also seeks direction to ensure the strict compliance of the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Government of India, New Delhi.
The BPCL pursuant to the process, selected the private respondent for establishment of a retail outlet and to whom Letter of Intent was granted and provisional No Objection Certificate was also issued by the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways.
In reply to the writ petition, respondent No.7 has raised an objection that the writ petitioner has no locus standi to file the writ petition as the petitioner is operating an outlet/petrol pump nearby and is a competitor of respondent No.7 in the business of the same trade.
The learned Single Judge, by its order impugned dated 07.08.2023, dismissed the writ petition relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in matter of The Nagar Rice & Flour Mills & Ors. Vs.N.Teekappa Gowda & Bros. & Ors.1, and held that the writ petitioner has no locus standi to file the writ petition, against which the present writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant-writ petitioner.
Mr. Moti Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner would submit that the learned Single Judge is absolutely unjustified in dismissing the writ petition as the petitioner is not the competitor of respondent No.7. The outlet of the petitioner is running since long back and the respondents are obliged to follow the guidelines/policy of the Government (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), in which a specific condition has been imposed with regard to maintain the minimum distance between the location of two outlets situated upon the national highway. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of M.S. Jayaraj Vs. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala & Ors.2.
4 On the other hand, Mr. Vinay Kothari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the learned Single Judge is absolutely justified in dismissing the writ petition relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in The Nagar Rice & Flour Mills (supra) and holding that the writ petitioner being a rival competitor has no locus to challenge the decision in favour of private respondent No.7. He further submits that the writ petitioner not being an aggrieved person has no right to file the writ petition in light of the principles laid down in The Nagar Rice & Flour Mills (supra) and as such, the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the rival submissions made hereinabove and gone through the record including the impugned order.
It is an undisputed fact that the appellant-writ petitioner is running a retail outlet of India Oil Corporation Limited at Ch. 156/619 to 156/664 on NH-14 at village Aakdara, Tehsil Sumerpur, District Pali. The respondent-BPCL invited application for award of the retail outlet dealership in Khasra No.94 of village Aakdara, Tehsil Sumerpur, District Pali. The writ petitioner admittedly did not participate in the process for allotment of retail outlet issued by the respondent-BPCL and the BPCL pursuant to the process, selected the private respondent No.-7 for establishment of retail outlet and to whom LoI was issued and the provisional No Objection Certificate was also granted by the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways.
The learned Single Judge, while passing the order impugned, observed that the writ petitioner has no locus to file the writ petition and relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of The Nagar Rice & Flour Mills (supra), held that petitioner being the rival competitor is not an aggrieved person and he has no locus to challenge the decision in favour of respondent No.7 by filing the writ petition and accordingly proceeded to dismiss the writ petition.
In the matter of The Nagar Rice & Flour Mills (supra), a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Mysore, whereby the Court in a writ petition at the instance of the competitor set aside the order passed by the Director of Food & Civil Supplies sanctioning the shifting of the rice mills of the appellants therein on the ground of alleged violation of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 (for short ‘the Act of 1958’). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court while dealing with the provisions of the Act of 1958 and the facts of the said case, held that irrespective of the legality of the order of the Director, Food & Civil Supplies sanctioning the shifting of the rice mills of the appellant therein, competitor has no locus to challenge the order as no vested right of the competitor was being infringed. The appeal was, accordingly, allowed while setting aside the order of the High Court of Mysore. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in para 9 of the judgment in the matter of The Nagar Rice & Flour Mills (supra) held as under:
“9.Section 8(3)(c) is merely regulatory, if it is not complied with the appellants may probably be exposed to a penalty, but a competitor in the business cannot seek to prevent the appellants from exercising their right to carry on business, because of the default, nor can the rice mill of the appellants be regarded as a new rice mill. Competition in the trade or business may be subject to such restrictions as are permissible and are imposed by the State by a law enacted in the interests of the general public under Article 19(6) but a person cannot claim independently of such restriction that another person shall not carry on business or trade so as to affect his trade or business adversely. The appellants complied with the statutory requirements for carrying on rice milling operations in the building on the new site. Even assuming that no previous permission was obtained, the respondents would have no locus standi for challenging the grant of the permission, because no right vested in the respondents was infringed.”
Similarly, their Lordship of the Supreme Court in the matter of Jasbhai Motibai Desai vs Roshan Kumar & Ors.3, discussed the concept of locus standi vis-a-vis Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The said case revolves around the challenge to the No Objection Certificate issued under the Bombay Cinema Rules, 1954 by the District Magistrate at the instance of the rival competitor alleging violation of certain provisions of law. The appeal was against the dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court on the ground of locus. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court classified the applicants into three broad categories namely; (i) aggrieved person, (ii) stranger and (iii) busy body of meddlesome interpolar and held that only the first category (aggrieved person) can maintain a writ petition and the applicants under categories (ii) and (iii) have no locus to file a writ petition. Applying the test so laid down therein, the Court held that the rival competitor did not have any right to maintain a writ petition as no legal right has been infringed. It has been held by their Lordships in the matter of Jasbhai Motibai Desai (supra) in paragraphs 37 and 38 as under:
“37.It will be seen that in the context of locus standi to apply for a writ of certiorari, an applicant may ordinarily fall in any of these categories: (i) "person aggrieved"; (ii) "stranger": (iii) busybody or meddlesome interloper. Persons in the last category are easily distinguishable from those coming under the first two categories. Such persons interfere in things which do not concern them. They masquerade as crusaders for justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. They indulge in the pastime of meddling with the judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often, they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity; while the ulterior intent of some applicants in this category, may be no more than spoking the wheels of administration. The High Court should do well to reject the applications of such busybodies at the threshold.
38.The distinction between the first and second categories of applicants, though real, is not always well-demarcated. The first category has, as it were, two concentric zones; a solid central zone of certainty, and a grey outer circle of lessening certainty in a sliding centrifugal scale, with an outermost nebulous fringe of uncertainty. Applicants falling within the central zone are those whose legal rights have been infringed. Such applicants undoubtedly stand in the category of "persons aggrieved" In the grey outer circle the bounds which separate the first category from the second, intermix, interfuse and overlap increasingly in a centrifugal direction. All persons in this outer zone may not be "persons aggrieved".”
Learned counsel for the appellant cited M.S. Jayaraj (supra), which considered the challenge to the order of Excise of Commissioner permitting shifting of a foreign liquor shop from one range to another on the ground that the order of Excise Commissioner is without jurisdiction. Their Lordships referred to the law down in the matters of The Nagar Rice & Flour Mills (supra) and Jasbhai Motibai Desai (supra), with regard to locus and held that the order of the Excise Commissioner is without jurisdiction and the writ petition at the instance of competitor was held to be maintainable. As such, the judgment in M.S. Jayaraj (supra) was delivered on different facts as the facts of that case were that the order impugned is without jurisdiction and therefore, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner on M.S. Jayaraj (supra) will have no application to the facts of the present case and the principal of law laid down in the case of Jasbhai Motibai Desai (supra) with regard to locus will hold the field.
A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Mithilesh Garg Vs. UOI4, while referring to all precedents on the points held that the writ petitions at the behest of the competitors are not maintainable unless they establish infringement of their legal or fundamental right.
In view of the above, we are of considered opinion that the writ petition at the instance of the petitioner/being rival competitor is not maintainable as no vested, much less the legal right of the appellant-writ petitioner has been infringed. As such, the writ petitioner is not aggrieved by the order but is only aggrieved of his business being affected and to stall rival business from setting up. Such petition is at the behest of ‘stranger’ and ‘busy body of meddlesome interpolar’, as held in the matter of Jasbhai Motibai Desai (supra).
In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Single Judge has rightly not entertained the writ petition holding that the petitioner has no locus to file the writ petition as not being an aggrieved person. Therefore, the impugned order warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Rules 134 of the Rules of 1952. As such, we hereby affirm the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Consequently writ appeal deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed.