A competitor lacks legal standing to challenge a rival's business establishment when no legal right is infringed, reinforcing 'damnum sine injuria'.

JUDGMENT :

SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard Sri Sujit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent nos.2, 3, 6 and 7, Sri Vaibhav Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and Sri Komal Malhotra, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 5.

2. The controversy involved in the present petition is that the petitioner is running a retail outlet/petrol pump in the name and style of M/s National Filling Station at Hathagram, District Fatehpur. It is further alleged that respondent no.8 has been allotted a petrol pump of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited - respondent no.5 in contravention to the guidelines contained in the government order dated 4.12.2019. It is further alleged that the petitioner in respect of his grievance has also filed a representation before the District Magistrate, Fatehpur-respondent no.3. In pursuance thereto, the respondent no.3 had issued a show cause notice dated 13.9.2024 to the respondent no.5 and respondent no.8. Hence, by means of the present petition, the petitioner has sought direction for respondent no.3 to cancel the no objection certificate dated 7.10.2023 granted to the respondent no.8 to run the aforesaid retail outlet, notably annexed as Annexure No.4 to the petition.

3. At the very outset, a preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Komal Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 regarding the maintainability of the present petition on the ground that the petitioner has no locus to maintain the present petition as the petitioner has no fundamental/statutory right to stop another operator-respondent no.8 from setting up his retail outlet near the retail outlet of the petitioner.

4. In this regard, the perusal of the petition reveals that the petitioner has alleged that operation of the retail outlet by the respondent no.8 is causing problem to the public at large and also to the local businessman including the petitioner whose sale has been drastically dropped. Hence, it is beyond doubt that the allotment of the retail outlet in favor of the respondent no.8 is allegedly going to adversely affect the business of the petitioner.

5. Undisputedly, the petitioner is merely a rival in trade of respondent no.8. The establishment of a competing business which may have an adverse impact on the profitability of the petitioner cannot give right to a legal wrong, as such actions are clearly barred by the principle of damnum sine injuria which essentially holds that the law does not recognise any remedy unless it is established that a person has suffered a legal wrong or, to put it differently, a wrong which is recognised or is recognizable in law.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar and others , (1976) 1 SCC 671, had held as under:-

"47. Thus, in substance, the appellant's stand is that the setting up of a rival cinema house in the town will adversely affect his, monopolistic commercial interest, causing pecuniary harm and loss of business from competition. Such harm or loss is not wrongful in the eye of law, because it does not result in injury to a legal right or a legally protected, interest, the business competition causing it being a lawful activity. Juridical, harm of this description is called damnum sine injuries, the term injuria being here used in its true sense of an act contrary to law. The reason why the law suffers a person knowingly to inflict harm of this description on another, without holding him accountable for it, is that such harm done to an individual is a gain to society at large.

48. In the light of the above discussion, it is