IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 03.01.2017 CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR W.P.No.1678 of 2011
1 SMT.M.TAMILSELVI PROPRIETRIX M/S.VEERAMMAL AGENCY NO.218/1 PUDUKKOTTAI 6TH EAMBAL ROAD SATHIRAM OONANKUDI THIIRUMAYAM TALUK PUDUKOTTAI DISTRICT-622 201.
Vs
1 THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, NEW DELHI.
2 THE GENERAL MANAGER-SOUTH ZONE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD, A GOVT. OF INDIA ENTERPRISES, THALAMUTHU NATARAJAN MALIGAI, NO.1 GANDHI IRWIN ROAD, EGMORE, CHENNAI-8.
... Petitioner .. Respondents The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records in connection with the impugned Notification of the 2nd respondent calling for the appointment of retail outlet dealers in the State of Tamil Nadu published in the dailies on 1.11.2010 in so far as Arimalam Village Thirumayam Taluk Pudukkottai District in Serial No.363 is concerned quash the same consequently forbear the 2nd respondent from appointing any new retail outlet dealers in Arimalam Village, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District pending report of the Committee constituted by the 1st respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ravishankar Vallatharasu For Respondent-1 : Mr.K.Gunasekar, SPCGC For Respondent-2 : Mr.O.R.Santhanakrishnan
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned notification of the second respondent for the above said prayer. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is running proprietrix concern in the name and style of M/s Veerammal Agency, which is a retail dealer of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation in Arimalam Village, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District. The said company is an authorised retail dealer of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that in and by the impugned notification, the second respondent had given a proposal to appoint for retail outlet dealerships in Tamil nadu & Puducherry which had included the village in which the petitioner is carrying on his business. It the specific case of the petitioner that the said notification is contrary to the meeting held between the Federation of All Indian Petroleum Traders and the Tamil Nadu Petroleum Dealers Association wherein certain regulations were made by both the parties. Subsequently, a committee had also been constituted and before even the committee submitting a report the second respondent had issued the aforesaid notification which is in violation of the minites of the meeting. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
3. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent would submit that the petitioner has no loco standi to challenge the notification issued by the second respondent as the petitioner is only a retail dealer under the Bharat Petroleum Corporation and the notification had been issued in the larger interest of public by M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. In support of his contention, learned Standing Counsel relied on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in Nataraja Agencies vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas [2005 (1) CTC 394]. The relevant paragraph of the said judgement may usefully be extracted hereunder:
“3. The Supreme Court in Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 443, held that a rival businessman cannot file a writ petition, challenging the setting-up of a similar unit by another businessman, on the ground that establishing a rival business close to his business-place would adversely affect his business interest, even if the setting-up of the new unit is in violation of law. In Mithilesh case, cited supra, the Supreme Court followed its own decision in Rice and Flour Mills v. N.T Gowda, AIR 1971 SC 246, wherein it was held that a rice mill- owner has no locus standi to challenge under Art. 226, the setting up of a new rice-mill by another even if such setting up be in contravention of S. 8(3)(c) of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 because no right vested in such an applicant is infringed.
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, inasmuch 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 to 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.'
4. In the light of the aforesaid decision of this Court, since the petitioner had no locous standi to challenge the impugned notification issued by the respondent Corporation, this Court is of the view that no case is made out by the petitioner and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed for devoid of merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
03.01.2017 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No smi To,
1 THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, NEW DELHI.
2 THE GENERAL MANAGER-SOUTH ZONE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD, A GOVT. OF INDIA ENTERPRISES, THALAMUTHU NATARAJAN MALIGAI, NO.1 GANDHI IRWIN ROAD, EGMORE, CHENNAI-8.
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
smi W.P.No.1678 of 2011 03.01.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in