HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 22152 OF 2007 . DATED 19th April, 2011 BETWEEN M/s Reddy and Reddy Agencies Penumuru village, Chittoor District, Rep. by its Manager G.Mallikarjuna Naidu …Petitioner And Hindustand Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Chief Regional Manager (Retail) Tadepally,Guntur, Guntur District and ors. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 22152 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner is aggrieved of the action of the first respondent in appointing its dealer/retail outlet at Penumur Village in Chittoor District, in violation of the recommendations of the licencing authority-third respondent. The petitioner is the licencee of M/s Indian Oil Corporation vide D.P. & S.L. Agreement dated 01.04.1982 and running its retail outlet at Penumuru village, Chittoor District. It is stated that though the petitioner-retail outlet was established in the year 1982, in view of the peculiar market conditions, the petitioner is yet to attain business viability since the place of business is situated 13 K.Ms. away from the main stream of vehicular traffic. While so, it is stated that the first respondent issued notification on 21.7.2007 seeking to appoint another dealer in the same village where the petitioner is already running a retail outlet. Questioning the same, the present Writ petition is filed. It is the case of the petitioner that the notification issued by the first respondent-Corporation is contrary to the norms and guidelines issued by the Corporation from time to time and that the respondents failed to take into consideration the distant factor and also the fact that there is already two filling stations in the vicinity of the petitioner-outlet. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision to appoint a new dealer/retail outlet at Penumur village by the first respondent is not supported by any scientific or market survey in as much as the population of Penumnur village is less than 4000 people and there is hardly any vehicular traffic in and around the village and that there are already two petroleum retail outlets running within a vicinity of less than 5-6 K.Ms. He submits that appointment of new dealer/retail outlet at Penumur village would prejudicially affect the legitimate business of the petitioner apart from causing unhealthy competition in the market where there is no scope for immediate growth. The impleaded respondent stated that he was appointed as dealer of the respondent-Corporation for the proposed outlet at Penumur Village, after following the due procedure of selection process. It is the case of the impleaded respondent that the rival dealer has no locus to question the appointment of dealer for the proposed outlet notified by the official respondents. It is his further case that establishment of a new outlet by the respondent authorities is in the public interest and therefore the petitioner cannot found fault with the same. A similar and identical issue fell for consideration before this Court in Writ Petition No. 3893 of 1996, wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court, following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of JASBHAI MOTIBHAI DESAI VS. ROSHAN KUMAR, HAJI BASHIR AHMED (AIR 1976 SC 578), held that the petitioner therein has no locus standi to question the appointment of his rival as dealer of the respondent-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited for the proposed outlet at Penumur village. This Court has laid down in a number of decisions that in order to have the locus standi to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution an applicant should ordinarily be one who has a personal or individual right in the subject-matter of the application, though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto this rule is relaxed or modified. In other words, as a general rule, infringement of some legal right or prejudice to some legal interest inhering in the petitioner is necessary to give him a locus standi in the matter. From the factual scenario, it appears that no infringement of legal right or prejudice to interest of the petitioner occasioned. Further, in the case of RAJAPPA KAWATI Vs. G. HANUMATHA RAO { 1995(3) ALT 878 DB} this Court, following the decision in the case of JASBAI MOTIBAHAI DESAI (supra), held that a business rival is not permitted to object to the grant of permit to another person who wants to run similar business. Thus, it is clear that no relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is available in a situation of this nature. It was observed by this Court in Writ Petition No.18310 of 1996 dated 2.9.1996 that even if the respondent-Corporation violated the norms, no writ as such would lie since they are non-statutory in character and are mere guidelines to be observed by the Oil Companies and do not confer any statutory or legally enforceable rights in favour of the licencees such as the petitioner. Similarly, in Writ Petition No. 21384 of 1999 dated 15.11.1999, this Court, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in J.RAGHUPATHI Vs. STATE OF AP ( AIR 1988 SC 1681), observed that the licensing authority could in the plenitude of its discretion consider the prescriptions fairly and rationally. No writ under Article 226 of the Constitution can issue directing exercise of such discretion conferred on the licensing authority in a particular manner. Such an exercise would be outside the ambit of Article 226 of the Constitution. Having seen that the petitioner has no standing to complain of injury, actual or potential, to any statutory right or interest, I am of the considered opinion that no right or interest of the petitioner recognised by the general law has been infringed on account of appointment of the impleaded petitioner/fifth respondent as dealer/retail outlet of the respondent-Corporation. I therefore see no merit in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 19th April, 2011. Msnro