Point of Law: Harm or the pecuniary loss which would be occasioned to the petitioners cannot be regarded as wrongful in the eye of law because it does not result in an injury to a legal right or a legally protected interest in as much as, the business competition is a lawful activity and any interference thereof would be a negation to the fundamental right of the respondent No. 6 under article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A.K. Hussain, the learned counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions. I have also heard Mr. B.Deuri, learned Junior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in both the writ petitions. Mr. R. Islam, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 4 and 5 and Mr. Santanu Kumar Das, learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 6 in W.P.(C) No. 3543/2020 and Mr. A.A.R. Karim, learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 6 in W.P. (C) No. 3690/2020.

2. In both the writ petitions, as the facts and issue of law being similar, the same are taken up for disposal by the instant common judgment and order.

W.P. (C) No. 3543/2020

3. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner is a license holder of a fair price shop at village Dhuturamari under M/S Tamarhat Samabay Samity Ltd. in the district of Dhubri, Assam. The petitioner’s license No. is GSM-39/92/PD-IV/G/TH/R-18 dated 23/11/1992. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has household consumers totaling to 1523 out of which 32 numbers of ration card holders cover 151 population under the AAY Rice Commodities and 274 ration card holders cover 1372 population under Priority Rice Commodities. The petitioner’s further case in the writ petition is that since 1992 the petitioner has been operating his fair price shop to the full satisfaction of all concerned, but suddenly in the month of May, 2020 he came to learn from reliable sources that the Respondent No. 6 in connivance with the Respondent No. 5 and the Respondent No. 4 made a conspiracy, whereby the respondent No. 6 was making an attempt to open a fair price shop by curtailing the consumers of the petitioner and with a view thereof a false petition was filed before the authorities concerned by the 88 Nos. of card holders. Thereupon the said 88 nos. of card holders made a representation before the Respondent No. 3 on 21/6/2020 and before the Respondent No. 2 on 18/7/2020 withdrawing their grievances and also stated that they want to get the commodities, rice etc from the petitioner’s fair price shop. On the basis of the said representation of the consumers, the Respondent No. 3 issued a letter on 23/7/2020 whereby instructed the Respondent No. 4 to stop issue of PDS commodities to the Respondent No. 6 fair price shop till the assembly election 2021 was over. Thereafter on 17/8/2020 the Respondent No. 3 issued the letter being Memo no. GSM-4/2018/674(A) whereby instructed the Respondent No. 4 that the letter dated 23/7/2020 may be treated as withdrawn and instructed to issue allotted PDS commodities to the Respondent No. 6 from the month of September onwards. Thereupon the petitioner submitted two representations before the Respondent No. 2 and 3 on 01/09/2020 raising his grievances and also prayed for cancellation of the fair price shop license issued in favor of the Respondent No. 6 and also prayed not to allot any PDS commodities to the Respondent no. 6. The Respondent No. 6 having not acted upon the representations of the petitioner, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for setting aside and quashing the letter dated 27/8/2020 under Memo No. GSM-4/2018/674(A) issued by the respondent No. 3 as well as any fair price license issued in favor of the Respondent no. 6 and further prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 not to make any allotment of PDS commodities by curtailing the existing consumers attached to the petitioner’s fair price shop in terms with the Government guidelines as well as order of this Court and in the alternative prayed for a direction to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 01/09/2020. In the said writ petition, the petitioner has relie