Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 56788 (ALL)

ANKUR YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA AND 5 OTHERS

WRIC/15008/2025 · 2025-05-12

Shekhar B Saraf, Y K Srivastava

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78415-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15008 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ankur Yadav Respondent :- Union Of India And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kuldeep Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Komal Mehrotra Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "i. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned no objection certificate (letter of intent) dated 05.02.2025 issued by the respondent no.5 (Annexure no.1 to the writ petition). ii. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from issuing any license and executing license deed/land use deed for running retail outlet at the site in question, by the respondent no.6." 3. Admittedly, the petitioner is a rival businessman who is running a retail outlet on a particular place where respondent no.6 has obtained a 'No Objection Certificate' from the District Magistrate for setting up a retail outlet. 4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has raised preliminary objection with regard to locus standi of the petitioner and in this regard has placed a judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Rinki Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2021 (1) AWC 124 , wherein the writ Court has categorically held as follows:- "3. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 5 have raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi and being a rival, the writ petition is not maintainable at his behest. In support of their submissions they relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in D.C.M. Shri Ram Industries Ltd. and another vs. State of U.P. and others, 2007 4 ADJ 150 (para 26) and judgment dated 13.5.2011 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.54670 of 2009 (M/s. Luheta Urja Kendra and another Vs. Union of India and others. x x x x x 6. Admittedly, the petitioner is running a petrol pump. By means of present writ petition he is opposing the establishment of another petrol pump near his petrol pump. Thus, the whole effort of the petitioner by means of this writ petition is to stop a new operator coming in the field as his competitor. The petitioner has no fundamental or statutory right to stop another operator coming in business near his petrol pump. 7. In Nagar Rice and Flour Mills Vs. N.T. Gowda (1970) 1 SCC 575 it was held that a rice mill owner has no locus standi to challenge under Article 226 the setting up a new rice mill by another for the reason that none of his vested rights are infringed. 8. A similar view was taken in the decisions in Jas Bhai Moti Bhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar (1976) 1 SCC 671 and Mithilesh Garg and other Vs. Union of India and others (1992) 1 SCC 168. 9. We are not inclined to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction where the claim of the petitioner is essentially aimed at eliminating healthy competition and for perpetuating his monopoly in the area." 5. In the present case also, it is clear that the petitioner is a rival businessman who is opposing establishment of a petrol pump on the land where he has a petrol pump. 6. We have also perused the complaint filed by the petitioner before the District Magistrate with regard to granting 'No Objection Certificate' to respondent no.6. The complaint is bereft of any specific reason based on which the 'No Objection Certificate' could be said to have been wrongly granted except for general allegations having been made. 7. In light of the same, we are not impressed with the present writ petition and do not intend to exercise our discretion in favour of the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the present writ petition. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 Shahroz (Dr. Y.K. Srivastava,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAHROJ ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad