Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CHHITARMAL AGARWAL versus BAJAJ FILLING STATION DISTRICT MATHURA AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Chhitarmal Agarwal v. Bajaj Filling Station District Mathura And Others - WRIT - C No. 4804 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 7601 (12 April 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

                                                                                       Court No.38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4804 of 2006

Chhitarmal Agrawal

Versus

Bajaj Filling Station through its Proprietor Brijendra Khandelwal & others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

Respondent no. 1 is a wholesale licensee of kerosene oil. His licence was placed under suspension by an order of the District Magistrate, Mathura. During the period of suspension, the petitioner was appointed as ''Supurdgar'. Thereafter the licence of respondent no. 1 was cancelled by the licensing authority, which was challenged in appeal. The appellate authority (respondent no. 2, the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra) has, vide order dated 1.2.2005, allowed the appeal of respondent no.1 and set aside the cancellation order, which is impugned in this writ petition.

I have heard Sri A.B.Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri Amit Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent no. 1 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents no. 2 to 5. Pleadings between the contesting parties have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Amit Saxena, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 that the petitioner, who was merely appointed as ''Supurdgar', would have no locus standi to maintain this writ petition. It has also been submitted that the ''Supurdgar' was appointed only for the period during which the licence of respondent no. 1 had been placed under suspension, and as such he acquired no vested right to continue to operate the licence, which was granted in favour of respondent no. 1.

Sri A.B.Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has, however, submitted that besides having been appointed as ''Supurdgar' during the period of suspension of the license of respondent no. 1, the petitioner is also a wholesale dealer licensee for kerosene oil for a different area, and as such he would be entitled to file this writ petition, as his business would also be affected in case if the respondent no. 1 is permitted to operate his licence, though in an area separate from that of the petitioner.  

The petitioner may be a business rival of respondent no. 1 but he does not acquire any right to manage or interfere with the business of respondent no. 1, for which respondent no. 1 possess a valid licence. Thus, once the appellate authority has found that the order cancelling the licence of respondent no. 1 was wrongly passed, in my view, the petitioner would not have a right to file this writ petition. Otherwise also, by having been appointed as a ''Supurdgar' for the period during which the licence of respondent no. 1 was placed under suspension, the petitioner does not acquire any right to challenge an order which has now been passed in favour of the respondent no. 1, as even otherwise, the same does not affect the right of the petitioner to carry on his business in the area for which he has been granted licence.

Accordingly, in my view, the petitioner does not have the right to challenge the order impugned in this writ petition, which has been passed in favour of respondent no. 1. This writ petition is thus dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Dt/-12.4.2006

PS


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.