Heard learned advocate for the petitioner.
The advocate for the petitioner, by way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has approached this court with the following reliefs:
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issued a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of the mandamus and any other appropriate writ, order and direction to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 17.8.2011 passed by the State Government in Revision Application as well as the Order dated 19.4.2011 passed by the Ld. Collector, Mehsana;
(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the accompanying Petition, YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 17.8.2011 passed by the State Government in Revision Application as well as the Order dated 19.4.2011 passed by the Ld. Collector Mehsana and permit the petitioner to run those 561 cards;
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant ad-interim relief in terms of para 5(B) of this application;
(D) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the authority to return back to the Petitioner those 561 cards which are given back by the Petitioner to the Respondent No. 3 in view of the order of the Collector, (E) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant any other and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and fitness of things;"
The petitioner is constrained to file this petition as according to him the respondent no. 3 could not have been granted the fair price shop license as a result whereof, the petitioner's business is adversely affected, as account of the closure of fair price shop and cancellation of license at the relevant time of area called 'Dara', the petitioner Mandal was benefited as they were required to cater to the card holders, who were otherwise catered to by the then fair price shop owner, whose license was cancelled, in other words, on account of cancellation of license of area called 'Dara', whose card holders were looked after and catered by present petitioner. Now on account of issuance of license to respondent no. 3 for area called 'Dara', 'Dara' card holders will have to now be served and catered by respondent no. 3, which will be a tremendous loss to present petitioner. Hence the petitioner has approached this Court indicating that the license of fair price shop should not have been granted in favour of respondent no.3 on account of illegality, which are apparent on the face of it and therefore, this petition is filed challenging the action of grant of license to respondent no. 3.
This court is of the considered view that the petition under Article 226 be filed only when any personal injury or infringement of right is occurred. The petitioner, by way of this petition, challenges the issuance of license in favour of respondent no. 3, so as to prevent reduction in his business, which is likely to occur as per his own perception on account of license granted to respondent no. 3. Apart from this, no other injury is even pleaded or much less demonstrate. These additional cards, which are likely to be now taken back from petitioner's purview, had come to the petitioner on account of fortunate circumstances, as at the relevant time, shop at 'Dara' was closed or license was cancelled, now the petitioner has opportunity on account of those circumstances, cannot be permitted to be perpetrated by raising challenge to new licensee's right to have their share at 'Dara'. The petitioner has not made out any case that the place called 'Dara' does not deserve to any fair price shop, on the contrary, place 'Dara', who had been having a shop earlier, was in fact, given fair price shop, it is purely a matter of chance that petitioner could alleged some illegality or irregularities in allotment of shop to respondent no. 3, but that in itself, should not be clothed the petitioner with locus, if he is having none. The petitioner's challenge to respondent no. 3's license, even if, is upheld, the petitioner's likely injury of loosing card holders cannot be prevented, as if the respondent no. 3 is not held to be competent, than, someone else would be given those cards and therefore, the entire exercise sought to be undertaken by the petitioner would be in futile. The loosing of card holders to 'Dara' shop, which petitioner has got on account of fortunate circumstance, cannot be said to be an injury providing cause of action to the petitioner to challenge the fair price shop granted in favour of respondent no. 3.
The petition being misconceived, deserves rejection and is accordingly rejected. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) pallav Top