(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the notification dated 15.10.2014 only to the extent of proposing outlet at Serial No.369 in the said notification issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, malafide without proper application of mind against to the rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the notification dated 15.10.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent in so far to the extent of proposing new outlet at Serial No.369 in the said notification

IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 9749 OF 2017

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 stay of all further proceedings pertaining to proposed outlet at Serial No.369 in the Notification dated 15.10.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent)

1. The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

               “…to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the notification dated 15.10.2014 only to the extent of proposing outlet at Serial No.369 in the said notification issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, malafide without proper application of mind against to the rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the notification dated 15.10.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent in so far to the extent of proposing new outlet at Serial No.369 in the said notification and pass such other order or orders.…”

2. The short grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is running petroleum outlet in Sy.No.199/1, Pinagadi Village, Pendurthy Mandal (left side Vepagunta-Pinagadi road). The respondents are granting permission to some third parties for establishing another outlet. If the authorities give no objection certificate, another outlet will come near the petitioner’s outlet. If the same is happened, the petitioner concern will be put to irreparable loss and hardship.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

4. When this Court specifically queried the learned counsel for the petitioner as to what rules or guidelines had been prescribed, learned counsel fairly stated that Indian Oil Corporation Limited had not framed any rules for establishing an outlet at a particular place.

5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Nagar Rice and Flour Mills and others v. N.Teekappa Gowda and brothers (AIR 1971 SC 246) held that a competitor in business can have no grievances against the grant of permission, permitting the installation of new site. The right to carry on business being a fundamental right in regulation 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, its exercise is subject only to the restrictions imposed by law in the interests of the general public under Article 19(6)(i) of the Constitution of India.

6. The loss of income, due to competition in trade by the rivals, does not confer any right upon a businessman to challenge the grant of permission for outlet. The competitor does not possess the locus standi to challenge establishment of another outlet in the vicinity because he/she cannot be considered to be aggrieved person, within the meaning. Such permission relates only to the issue of locus standi and does not infringe the legal right of the writ petitioner to carry on trade.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the rights of the petitioner were not infringed, there was no arbitrariness in the action of the respondents, and the petitioner did not have a competitor in his business.

8. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner’s rights were not infringed and in the absence of any specific rules framed by the Indian oil Corporation Limited, the action of the respondents cannot said to be arbitrary or illegal.

9. Hence, this Court finds no reasons to entertain the writ petition, especially after a lapse of six years. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.