BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27/06/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MOHAN RAM W.P.(MD).No.453 of 2006 and W.P.M.P.(MD).NO.533 of 2006 R.Alexander ... Petitioner Versus 1.Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, No.2, Race Cource Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai 2 2.Raja Singh ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from opening or operating any retail outlet for sale of petrol and diesel supplied by the 1st respondent, Indian Oil corporation, on the land about 51 cents in extent comprised in Re.Sy.No.481/4A/1A in Kappiara Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District. !For Petitioner ... Ms.J.Anandhavalli ^For respondents ... Mr.A.Elango for Mr.Pon Muthuramalingam,ASGI (for R1) Mr.G.Justin (For R2) :ORDER
By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is having dealership for
retail sale of petrol and diesel from Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. The
second respondent has been granted dealership by the first respondent and
according to the petitioner, the second respondent’s outlet is situated on
Karungal-Marthandam Road within 2 kms from the petitioner’s outlet. According
to the petitioner, earlier there was a proposal to grant dealership to one
Mr.Christopher who was the owner of the plot and the first respondent got a
lease deed in respect of 51 cents in S.No.481/4A/1A from the said Christopher on
10.12.03 and the dealership was granted to the said Christopher after obtaining
proper `no objection certificate’ from the State Government. According to the
petitioner, due to some objections raised the first respondent cancelled the
dealership granted to the said Christopher. While so, the first respondent on
8.7.2005 published in news papers inviting offers for sale of lands suitable
for installing petrol and diesel pumps for retail sale of petrol and diesel and
one of the places mentioned is Karungal which according to the petitioner lies
within two kms from the petitioner’s outlet. According to the petitioner, the
first respondent has granted dealership to the second respondent who is none
other than the brother-in-law of the said Christopher. The grievance of the
petitioner is that the outlet of the second respondent lies within two kms from
the outlet of the petitioner which is against the circulars issued by the first
respondent. Once the dealership granted to Christopher in respect of the same
location was cancelled, based on the same ‘no objection certificate’ dealership
should not have been granted to the second respondent by the first respondent.
On the said contentions, the writ petition is filed seeking for the issue of a
writ of Mandamus.
3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent.
In the counter affidavit, it is stated that Mr.Christopher has transferred his
property in favour of his wife Mrs.Jothi Malliga on 8.6.2005 through a
registered settlement deed vide document No.78/2005 and a land lease agreement
was also entered into for a period of 30 years from 12.12.2005 between Jothi
Malliga and the first respondent. It is also stated in the counter affidavit
that Jothi Malliga has nominated her brother Mr.Raja Singh for the award of
retail outlet dealership in line with the policy of the first respondent
Corporation. According to the first respondent, the ‘no objection certificate’
was given in the name of the Corporation and the same was granted during January
2004 and the question of ‘no objection certificate’ becoming invalid due to the
change in the title holder does not arise. Regarding the objections raised by
the petitioner relating to the location of the outlet within 2 kms from the
petitioner’s outlet, it is stated that the retail outlets are developed based on
the commercial viability and there is no violation of any rules.
4. The 2nd respondent has filed a separate counter affidavit. In the
said counter affidavit, the second respondent contented that the second
respondent’s outlet does not lie within 2 kms from the petitioner’s outlet. The
2nd respondent also referred to the lease deed executed in favour of the 1st
respondent. By relying upon the decision reported in 2005 (1) CTC 394 (NATARAJA
AGENCIES v. THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS)the 2nd
respondent submitted that the petitioner, a rival businessman has no locus
standi to file the above writ petition and on the above said contentions the 2nd
respondent seeks the dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above said
contentions put forth by the petitioner in the affidavit. The learned counsel
is unable to produce any circular or rule imposing a ban for locating an outlet
within 2 kms from the existing outlet.
7. The petitioner is a dealer under the Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation. The first respondent is Indian Oil Corporation which has granted
dealership to the second respondent. In the present case, the only grievance of
the petitioner is that if the second respondent is permitted to set up his
retail outlet within 2 kms from the petitioner’s outlet, his business interest
would be adversely affected. As laid down in the decision reported in 2005 (1)
C.T.C. 394, the petitioner has no locus standi to complain about the setting up
of the second respondent’s outlet near the petitioner’s place of business on the
ground that it would affect his business interest. As laid down in the
aforesaid decision, it will only result in promoting competition among the
traders which is good for the consumers. Merely because some of the customers
may switch over to the rival retail outlet does not mean that public interest
would suffer. But, on the other hand, it will only benefit the consumers
because when there is competition, the businessmen are compelled to provide
better quality products at reasonable rates.
8. As laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR
1992 SC 143 (MITHILESH GARG V. UNION OF INDIA), a rival businessman cannot file
a writ petition, challenging the setting-up of a similar unit by another
businessan, on the ground that establishing a rival business close to his
business-place would adversely affect his business interest, even if the
setting-up of the new unit is in violation of law. If the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner is considered on the basis of the law laid
down by the Supreme Court, it can be safely held that the above writ petition is
not maintainable. The petitioner has not made out a case that the outlet to be
set up is in violation of any provision of law.
9. Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the first
respondent, the `no objection certificate’ has been granted in respect of the
immovable property in favour of the 1st respondent and any earlier cancellation
of dealership will not stand in the way of the 1st respondent granting
dealership to the second respondent
10. For the above said reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, WPMP (MD).No.533/2006 is dismissed.
sal
To
Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager,
Indian Oil Corporation,
No.2, Race Cource Road,
Chokkikulam,
Madurai 2