IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 614 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the dated 17-4-2025 in W.P.No.31158 of 2024 on the file of the High Court. Between: K.N.V.Ratna Babu, S/o. Lakshmi Nancharaiah, aged about 31 Years, R/o H.No.1-204, Kalekhan Peta, Machilipatnam, Krishna District ...APPELLANT/WRIT PETITIONER AND Union of India, Rep by its Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Sasthry Bhavan, New Delhi. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, R/o Bharat Bhavan 4 and 6, Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai, Maharashtra. The Territory Manager LPG and CPIO, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Pinapaka Village, G Konduru Mandal, Kondapalli, Vijayawada, Krishna District. The District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. The Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Krishna, Machilipatnam. Machilipatnam Municipal Corporation, Rep., by its Commissioner, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. Narender Ganta, S/o Ganta Gairayya, Aged about 40 years R/oD No 11222, Nidadavole, West Godavari District 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ...RESPONDENTS ■ lA N0:1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to make any constructions in the premises at D.No.29/428 of Inagudurupeta/Chintaguntapalem, Machilipatnam, pending disposal of the above appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI ALEKHYA REDDY TADASINA, CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI P. SHREYAS REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5: GP GOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.6:SRI A.S.C.BOSE, SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI N.ASHWANI KUMAR The Court made the following: JUDGMENT APHC010260742025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Sr.No:-3 AT AMARAVATI [3483] WRIT APPEAL NO: 614 of 2025 K.N.V.Ratna Babu ...Appellant Vs. Union Of India and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Appellant: Advocate(s) for Respondent(s); Mr. Subba Rao Korrapati Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 16*'^ June 2025 Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR. CJ: The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 17.04.2025, passed in W.P. No.31158 of 2024. The petition filed by the petitioner/appellant herein has been dismissed on the ground of locus. The petitioner in the writ petition had challenged the selection of respondent No.7 - Narender Ganta as retail outlet dealer for Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited on the ground that the site offered by respondent No.7 was not in accord with the site requirement, which was otherwise envisaged to be provided for the establishment of the retail outlet. The case setup by the 2. 2 HCJ a RC, J W.A. No:614of 2025 petitioner was that as per the advertisement notice, dated 28.06.2023, the location offered by the applicant should have been within the municipal limits of Machilipatnam and not on any State Highway or National Highway. It is stated that the site, which was offered by respondent No.7, was on the National Highway and therefore, it was sought to be established that the selection of respondent No.7 was contrary to the terms and conditions of the advertisement notice. It is not out of place here to mention that with a view to show that the location in question was part of the National Highway, the petitioner had placed reliance upon a communication, dated 06.09.2024, issued by the Executive Engineer (R & B), Krishna Division, Machilipatnam, to the Collector, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, which reads as under: It is to submit that the proposed retail outlet of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Vijayawada is situated at Sy.No.29/428, Inaguduru, Machilipatnam Mandal, Krishna District is located at Km.93/2 left side of bypassed stretch of NH 216. Machilipatnam town limits, for petroleum product at Km.93/2 bypassed stretch of NH 216 Machilipatnam town limits.” 3. The stand of the respondents, on the other hand, was that upon complaint having been filed by the petitioner, the issue was got clarified from the Project Director, Ministry of Road Transport, & National Highways vide its letter, dated 17.06.2024 clarified thus; who “This has reference to the letter 1®' cited above vide which it has been requested to clarify whether the plot at Survey No.29/428 at Machilipatnam Municipality, Krishna District is abutting NH-216. 3 HCJ a RC, J W.A. No:614 of 2025 2. In this connection, it is to inform you that the above said survey number is abutting the old NH-216 which used to r through Machilipatnam town. A bypass was constructed for Machilipatnam town and therefore, the existing road is no longer considered to be a National Highway. It was handed over to the State Government vide letter dated 24.02.2020 and has been under the control of the State Government since then.” pass It was in that backdrop that the learned single Judge dismissed the petition holding that the petitioner had no locus to challenge the selection of respondent No.7, as the petitioner was a rival trader whose right to carrying the business of running a retail petroleum outlet had not been infringed account of the selection of respondent No.7 by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. on on 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the view expressed by the learned single Judge on the issue of locus was unsustainable in law considering the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in M.S. Jayaraj v. Commissioner of Excise, KeralaV It is not out of place here to mention that the learned single Judge in its judgment and order impugned had held that reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on M.S. Jayaraj (supra) had no application to the facts of the present case in the context of locus standi. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. ^ (2000) 7 see 552 4 HCJ a RC, J W.A. No:614of 2025 Admittedly, the appellant is a rival trader, who was running a petroleum outlet, perhaps in the close vicinity of the location where respondent No.7 is supposed to establish a petroleum outlet. The communication, dated 17.06.2024, issued by the Project Director, Ministry of Road Transport & National Highways, which is reproduced in the preceding paragraphs, does indicate that the location offered by respondent No.7 is on a road which is no longer considered to be a National Highway and that the same had since been handed over to the State Government vide letter, dated 24.02.2020, and under the control of the State Government since then. If that be so, then certainly the stand of the appellant that the selection of respondent No.7 in that context cannot be held to be bad. 6. was Even otherwise, we find no reason to interfere with the view expressed by the learned single Judge on the issue of locus standi. A Bench of this Court of which one of us (Thakur, J) was a member, has dealt with the issue in M/s. Galaxy Restaurant and Bar v. M/s New Modern Restaurant and Bar^ in which reliance was placed on the Apex Court judgment in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar^ 7. The Supreme Court in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai (supra) case had held the petitioner was not a ‘person aggrieved’ having no locus standi to challenge the grant of ‘No Objection Certificate’ in favour of the unofficial respondents ^ W.A. No,932 of 2023, decided on 25.09.2023 ^ AIR 1976 SC 578 5 HCJ a RC, J W.A. No:614of2025 therein, who had applied for ‘No Objection Certificate’ for establishment of a cinema theatre at a particular location within the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate concerned. The petitioner had filed the petition challenging the issuance of ‘No Objection Certificate’ in favour of the unofficial respondents therein. In those circumstances, the Apex Court held thus: “47. 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. Therefore he is not a 'person aggrieved' and has no locus standi to challenge the grant of the No-objection Certificate.” 8. As regards the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of M.S. Jayaraj, the Division Bench held in M/s. Galaxy Restaurant and Bar case as under; “18. The facts in the case of M.S.Jayaraj vs. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala and others pertained to a situation where the Apex Court interfered primarily on the ground that the Excise Commissioner had no authority to permit shifting of a foreign liquor shop from a one range to a totally different range and therefore, it was held to be passed without authority and law. 19. Whereas in the present case, according to Rule 29(C), there was a specific power vested in the Commissioner of Excise who could order shifting of the licensed premises for a valid reason. Reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on M.S.Jairaj vs. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala and others was therefore totally inapt in the facts and circumstances of the case. 20. We therefore, accordingly hold that the petitioners had no locus standi at all to challenge the order dated 07.08.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise as they could not be said to be persons aggrieved as none of their rights were affected. 6 HCJ a Rt, j W.A. No:614of 2025 It is not out of place to mention here that the SLP preferred against the judgment and order, dated 25.09.2023, rendered in M/s. Galaxy Restaurant and Bar was dismissed by virtue of order, dated 14.05.2024. a: ^ 9. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgment to the facts of the present case, we have no hesitation in holding that the view expressed by the learned single Judge holding that the petitioner/appellant herein had no locus standi to challenge the selection of respondent No.7 calls for no interference and that the petition was rightly dismissed on the ground of locus standi. We find no merit in the writ appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- V. DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri Subba Rao Korrapati, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri Alekhya Reddy Tadasina, Central Govt. Counsel [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri P. Shreyas Reddy, Advocate[OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri A.S.C. Bose, SC for Municipal Corporations[OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, Advocate[OPUO 6. Two CC’s to GP for Revenue, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT] 7. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:16/06/2025 JUDGMENT ^ Ih m 2025 jm WA.No.614 of 2025 DISMISSING THE W.A. WITHOUT COSTS