By the Court.—Heard Sri Shiv Nath Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri J.P. Singh learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 as well as Sri R.N. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel representing the State respondents.

2. The appellant was a caveator in a writ petition preferred by the fifth respondent (original petitioner). The writ petition challenged an order dated 17/26 May 2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Burhanpur, Azamgarh. This communication of the Sub Divisional Magistrate addressed to the Block Development Officer noted that a petition had been submitted by the Gram Pradhan, Bhaupur on 3 May 2016 seeking the establishment of a fair price shop in village Sarangpur. The communication records that the fair price shop of the original petitioner is situate in village Khanpur which is at a distance of 3.5 Kms. from village Sarangpur. The Sub Divisional Magistrate noting the inconvenience which was being caused to the residents of village Sarangpur and in public interest recommended that the establishment of a fair price shop at the said village may be duly considered. Pursuant to the said communication, the Gram Sabha is said to have convened a meeting on 10 July 2016 in which the appellant is said to have been selected as the fair price shop dealer. These proceedings were impugned in the writ petition. While various submissions were advanced before the learned Single Judge, the writ petition itself has come to be allowed on the short ground that the original petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the issuance of the communication dated 17/26 May 2016. On this ground alone, the learned Single Judge proceeded to quash the communication of the Sub Divisional Officer while leaving it open to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

3. The grant of a license to run a fair price shop is admittedly governed by the provisions of the U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order 2004 (2004 Order). No provision of the 2004 Order grants an exclusive right of operation to a dealer. Neither the 2004 Order nor any provision of the license issued to a dealer guarantees or ensures a particular level of revenue or profit. Despite repeated queries, counsel for the fifth respondent was unable to bring to our notice or refer to any provision of either the license or the 2004 Order which granted him an exclusive right to operate a fair price shop in the area concerned to the exclusion of all others. Learned counsel for the respondent, we may note, candidly admitted that the license did not guarantee either an exclusive area of operation or level of revenue. The issue primarily which therefore, arises for consideration is whether an existing licensee has a legal right to object to the establishment of an additional fair price shop.

4. The answer to this question in our view, has to be in the negative based on the age old principle of damnum sine injuria. A person engaged in a particular trade or business fundamentally does not have a right to oppose the establishment of a competing business unless it fall foul of some statutory prohibition. This essentially because what the law protects is a legal wrong. Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution does not confer a right on a person to carry on a trade or business without competition. The coming into existence of a competitor in business may result in the trade or business of the existing person being adversely affected. This however, does not result in creation of a locus standi in favour of the existing trader to challenge such establishment in view of the fact that no legal right vested in him stands infringed. This issue was dealt with by the Supreme Court as far back as in Nagar Rice and Flour Mills v. N. Teekappa Gowda & Bros, (1970) 1 SCC 575. A challenge of a similar nature as raised before the Supreme Court was answered thus:

“Section 8 (3) (c) is merely regulatory, if it is not complied with the appellants may probably