Petitioner, a rival petrol station manager, challenged NOC granted to respondent business. Court held petitioner lacked locus standi as claim aimed at eliminating competition rather than protecting specific rights. Petition dismissed following precedent.
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. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5698 of 2021
Petitioner :- Sukhveer Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Pratibha Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rakesh Kumar
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard Sri Arun Kumar Singh for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1, 3 and 4 and Sri Rakesh Kumar for the respondent no.2.
The petitioner is a Manager of a petrol filling station, which might be a competitor of the fifth respondent, has questioned the grant of noobjection certificate (NOC) by the third/fourth respondent in favour of the fifth respondent.
A preliminary objection has been taken by Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation, that a rival businessman who has no connection with the land over which a retail outlet is to be set up cannot be taken as an aggrieved person to have locus to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to question grant of NOC in favour of rival businessman.
In support of the aforesaid contention, Sri Rakesh Kumar has cited a Division Bench decision of this Court dated 17th December, 2020 passed in Writ-C No.22409 of 2020 (M/s Prince Filling Station Vs. Union Government of India and 5 others) wherein it has been held that where the claim of the petitioner is solely to prevent a rival from exercising a right to carry on business, he would not have the locus standi to maintain a writ petition as the same would essentially be aimed at eliminating healthy competition in business.
We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the decision cited by the learned counsel for the second respondent. In this case also, the petitioner appears to be a rival businessman. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has any interest in the land in respect of which NOC has been granted. He has also not disclosed as to what right of the petitioner, other than to preserve his commercial interest, would be affected by grant of the NOC. Hence, following the decision cited, we are of the considered view that the petition is liable to be dismissed for want of locus.
The petition is dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 1.10.2021 Bhaskar
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a rival businessman without interest in the land has locus standi to challenge the grant of a noobjection certificate to a competitor.
Whether the petitioner's claim to prevent a rival from exercising business rights negates locus standi under Article 226.
Whether the petition should be dismissed for want of locus under precedent.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s Prince Filling Station Vs. Union Government of India and 5 othersFollowed¶8
Writ-C No.22409 of 2020 (M/s Prince Filling Station Vs. Union Government of India and 5 others)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sukhveer Singh
State Of U.P.
Indian Oil Corporation
Manoj Misra
Jayant Banerji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
