The petitioner, a rival petroleum dealer, filed a writ petition challenging the appointment of another dealer near her outlet. The court held the petitioner lacked locus standi as business rivalry is not a legal right and dismissed the petition.
The writ petition was dismissed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 17.08.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.No.6356 of 2012
&
M.P.No.2 of 2012
V.Srijayanthi .. Petitioner Vs 1.Union of India, represented by Secretary to Government, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi. 2.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, through its Divisional Manager (Retail), Iruhoor, Top Installation, Ravathor Post, Iruhoor Via, Coimbatore – 641 103. .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned notification of the second respondent, so far as it related to the appointment of retail outlet dealer in Mylambadi, Erode District, (No.350 in advertisement) published in the Tamil Daily, 'Dhinathanthi''dated 16/09/2011 and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents from appointing any new retail outlet dealers in the above said place.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Barathan
The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for issuance of Writ of Certorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned notification of the second respondent, so far as it is related to the
appointment of retail outlet dealer in Mylambadi, Erode District, (No.350 in advertisement) published in the Tamil Daily, 'Dhinathanthi', dated 16/09/2011 and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents from appointing any new retail outlet dealers in the above said place.
"7. In this regard, it would be appropriate to place reliance in the judgment reported in 2005 (1) CTC 394 (Nataraja Agencies Vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas), wherein it has been held as follows
"4. In the present case, the only grievance of the appellant is that if the fourth respondent is permitted to set up her retail outlet within one kilometer radius of the appellant's outlet, his business interest would be adversely affected. In our opinion, the appellant has no locus standi at all to complain against the setting up of a rival retail outlet by the fourth respondent, near his place of business, on the ground that would affect his business interest, in as much as the damage, if any, suffered thereby was damnum sine injuria-damage without infringement of legal right. In our opinion, this will only result in promoting competition among the traders, which is good for the consumers. Merely because some of the customers may switch over the rival retail outlet does not mean that public interest will suffer rather, in our opinion, it will benefit the consumers because, when there is competition, the businessmen are compelled to provide better quality products at reasonable rates."
The dictum laid down in the above said judgment is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case. In the light of the above said judgment, I find that the petitioner herein has no locus standi to complain against the setting up of retail outlet by others near the petitioner's retail outlet.
Moreover, the petitioner is retail outlet dealer of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. Whereas, the impugned notification has been issued by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation. As a rival trader, the petitioner is not entitled to seek direction from the Court to forbear the other traders from establishing their outlet. Considering the present need of the petroleum dealers for the growing vehicle transportation, establishing more retail outlets cannot be denied. On this ground also the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(J) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mfa To 1. Secretary to Government, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi. 2.Divisional Manager (Retail), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Iruhoor, Top Installation, Ravathor Post, Iruhoor Via, Coimbatore – 641 103.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a rival retailer has locus standi to challenge the appointment of another dealer within one kilometer of their outlet based on potential loss of business.
Whether a competitor is entitled to seek a direction to forbid another trader from establishing a retail outlet.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nataraja Agencies Vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural GasRelied on¶14
2005 (1) CTC 394
W.P.No.4185 of 2011Relied on¶13
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Srijayanthi
Union of India
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
S. VAIDYANATHAN
R. NARASIMHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
S. VAIDYANATHAN and R. NARASIMHAN
Parties & counsel
