Hon’ble Ajay Bhanot, J.—Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to amend the prayer clause and correct the date of the impugned order by scoring of the date 2.2.2018 and inserting the correct date which is 27.1.2018.

2. Heard Shri Nagendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Dalvir Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

3. The petitioner, is a fair price shop dealer of village panchayat Birdpur N-11, District Siddharth Nagar.

4. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 27.1.2018 appointing respondent No. 6 as the fair price shop dealer of the aforesaid village panchayat. The respondent No. 6 is the third fair price shop dealer of the aforesaid village panchayat.

5. Shri Nagendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the appointment of respondent No. 6 as the third fair price shop dealer is in the teeth of the Government Order dated 17.8.2002. There are less than 8000 units village panchayat. The requirement of more than 8000 unis is not satisfied. The appointment of the third fair price shop dealer is not lawful.

6. Shri Moti Lal, learned Standing Counsel, refutes the aforesaid submissions. He contests the locus standi of the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that there is credible material in the record to demonstrate that more than 8000 units were in existence at all relevant points in time. He relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in case of Suman Yadav v. State of U.P., 2017(5) ADJ 344 (DB).

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

8. The locus standi of petitioner to challenge the appointment of respondent No. 6 as the fair price dealer of village panchayat Birdpur N11 shall be considered first.

9. From the facts in the record and submissions of the counsels, it is clear that petitioner wants to forestall the appointment of a rival fair price shop dealer. The desire of the petitioner is to protect his profit margin by preventing the appointment of the third fair price shop dealer. On the contrary the village panchayat in its wisdom found that there was a requirement of a third fair price shop dealer to ensure smooth distribution of essential commodities amongst the card holders and beneficiaries of the scheme. The rights of such individuals were duly considered by this Court in the case of Suman Yadav (supra). It was held, in line with the settled position of law, that a rival cannot challenge the appointment of another dealer to ward off competition. It would be apposite to reproduce the relevant extracts of the said judgment, which will guide the decision in this case.

“2. 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.

3. 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 o