SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Mad) 341

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MARKANDEY KATJU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. MURUGESAN
M/s.Palani Murugan Agencies - Appellant
Versus
The District Collector & Another - Respondents
W.A.No.392 of 2005
Decided On : 24 February 2005

Advocates Appeared: For The Appellant:R. Yashodvardhan, Advocate. For The Respondents:Abdul Saleem, Advocate.

Lack of locus standi for a rival businessman to challenge the allotment of a No Objection Certificate for locating an L.P.G. Retail outlet.

Headnote:

No Objection Certificate - L.P.G. Retail Outlet - The court upheld the dismissal of the writ petition challenging the grant of No Objection Certificate for locating an L.P.G. Retail outlet in a rural carriage way, citing the lack of locus standi for a rival businessman to challenge the allotment.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant challenged the order of the District Collector granting No Objection Certificate to the second respondent to locate an L.P.G. Retail outlet in a rural carriage way.

Finding of the Court:

The court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the dismissal of the writ petition, citing the lack of locus standi for the appellant to challenge the allotment.

Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the writ petition challenging the grant of No Objection Certificate for locating an L.P.G. Retail outlet.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India and Rice and Flour Mills v. N.T. Gowda, which held that a rival businessman has no locus to challenge the allotment even if it was illegal, as no vested right of the writ-petitioner is infringed.

Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was advised to approach the District Collector with his grievance.

Judgment :-

The Chief Justice:

This writ appeal has been filed against the order dated 20-1-2005 passed by the learned single Judge.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and find no merit in the appeal. The appellant/ writ-petitioner challenged the order of the District Collector, Villupuram, granting No Objection Certificate to the second respondent to locate an L.P.G. Retail outlet in a rural carriage way. Learned single Judge, following the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A. No.4057 of 2004 delivered on 8-12-2004, dismissed the writ petition.

3. The Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (Markandey Katju, Chief Justice) was a party, in an idential case, viz. W.P.No.4057 of 2004 by judgment dated 8-12-2004 held that such a writ petition is not maintainable in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India (AIR 1992 SC 443) and Rice and Flour Mills v. N.T. Gowda (AIR 1971 SC 246) wherein it was held that a rival businessman has no locus to challenge the allotment even if the allotment was illegal because no right vested in such writ-petitioner is infringed. We see no infirmity in the order of the learned single Judge. The writ appeal is, therefore, dismissed. However, if the appellant is so advised, he can approach the District Collector, Villupuram in respect of his grievance and if he does so, the District Collector will decide his representation at the earliest after hearing the parties concerned.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top