ORDER R.A. Sharma, J.
1. Petitioner was granted a licence for holding a cattle market in village Pachokhara by Zala Panchayat Jalaun at Orai, for the period from 3-9-1994 to 31-3-1995. This licence is said to have been renewed for the year 1995-96. I or village Ait, licence for holding cattle market for 1994-95 was granted by Zila Panchaxat to the Gaon Sabha. For another village Birsani licence for holding cattle market was granted to two persons for the year 1994-95. Petitioner has filed this writ petition for writ of mandamus restraining the respondents horn renewing the licences for the year 1995-96 for holding cattle market in village Ait and Birsani. His grievance, as put through his learned counsel, is two fold, viz. (i) renewal of licences for holding cattle market in neighbouring villages will adversely affect his business; and (ii) licences cannot be renewed without considering his representation. These contentions are devoid of merit.
2. U. P. Kshetriya Sarnities and Zila Parishads Adhiniyam, 1961 and Bye-laws framed thereunder by Zila Panchayat have not conferred any right on the petitioner to raaise objection against the grant or renewal of licence for holding cattle market to a business rival. Unless such a right is conferred on a person it is not open to him to object against grant of lience to another person. Supreme Court in N.R. & E. Mills v. N.T.G. & Bros. (AIR 1971 SC 246) has laid down that a competitor in the business cannot seek to prevent a rival business man from exercising his right to carry on a business. Relevant extract from the judgment of Supreme Court is reproduced below:--
"Competition in the trade or business would be subject to such restrictions as are permissible and are imposed by the State by a law enacted in the interest of general public under Art. 19(6), but a person cannot claim independently of such restriction that another person shall not carry on a business or trade so as to affect his trade business adversely. The appellant complied with the statutory requirements for carrying on rice milling operations in the building on the new site. Even assuming that no previous permission was obtained, the respondents would have no locus standi for challenging the grant of the permission, because no right vested in the respondents was infringed."
In J.M. Desai v. Roshan Kumar (AIR 1976 SC 578), it was held that owner of a cinema hall does not have locus standi to challeng the grant of No Objection Certificate in favour of his rival in trade. Same principle was reiterated by Supreme Court in Mithilesh Garg v. 'Union of India (AIR 1992 SC443), wherein it was laid down that under new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 a transport operator cannot chal-
lenge grant of permit to an other operator, because his rights guaranteed to him under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution it not affected when another permit is granted to another operator. It was so hela because unlike old Motor Vehicle Act the new Motor Vehicles Act does not contain any provision giving right to an existing operator to raise objection against grant of new permits. A Division Bench of this Court in Shyara Bihari Tewari v. State of U.P. 1994 (23) ALR 520) held that cinema owner has no locus standi to challenge the establishment and grant-in-aid for new cinema hall. In this connection this Court has laid down as under:--
"Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution any other provision of law does not guarantee protection from competition to the petitioners. The loss of income on account of competition does, not result in injury to the legal right of the business man."
3. No provision of law including the Bye-laws framed by the Zila Panchayat which confers right on the petitioner to raise objection against grant of licence to hold cattle market in other village has been placed before us. Even if such cattle markcts are held on the same day no legal right of the petitioner is infringed. He is not prevented from holding his own cattle market. The loss of income due to the business of rival in trade docs not confer any right on the petitioner to challenge the holding of cattle market by other persons, on the basis of licences granted to them.
4. For the reasons given above, this writ petition is dismissed.
5. Petition dismissed.