Petitioner challenged a revocation of a retail outlet licence. Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner lacked locus standi and was not prejudiced by the impugned action.
Writ petition dismissed for want of locus standi.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38954 of 2018
Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Yadav Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Upadhyay,Pramod Bhardwaj
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
This writ petition, inter alia, has been filed for the following reliefs;
"I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the process of resitement of respondent no. 5 outlet from Sarai Jalal to MDR Road Bakewar.
II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents."
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vaibhav Tripathi, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1, Union of India, Sri Vikash Budhwar, learned counsel for the Respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 and perused the record.
The petitioner has no locus standi to file this writ petition. Petitioner has not been prejudiced and therefore the petition is misconceived and not maintainable. Hence dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.11.2018 vinay
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has locus standi to file the present writ petition.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable in the absence of prejudice to the petitioner.
Amit Kumar Yadav
Union Of India
Other Respondents
Shashi Kant Gupta
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
