A business competitor lacks locus to challenge a rival outlet absent infringement of a legal right.

The appellant operated an Indian Oil Corporation retail outlet on NH-14 at village Aakdara. BPCL selected respondent No. 7 for a retail outlet in the same village; respondent No. 7 received a Letter of Intent and a provisional No Objection Certificate, following a proposal for access permission.

The appellant challenged the access proposal and NOC, alleging non-compliance with the applicable distance guidelines. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition for lack of locus standi, and the appellant appealed

1. Whether a competing petrol-pump operator, whose own legal or vested right is not shown to have been infringed, has locus standi to challenge another operator’s approvals by writ petition

2. Whether the principle in M.S. Jayaraj v. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala made the appellant’s challenge maintainable

Under The Nagar Rice & Flour Mills v. N. Teekappa Gowda & Bros., a business competitor cannot challenge a regulatory permission merely because the competing business may adversely affect its trade; the competitor must show infringement of a vested right.

Jasbhai Motibai Desai v. Roshan Kumar distinguishes an aggrieved person from a stranger or busybody and recognises standing where a legal right is infringed.

Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India likewise holds that a competitor’s writ petition is not maintainable absent infringement of a legal or fundamental right.

Although M.S. Jayaraj recognised maintainability in the circumstances before it, the Court distinguished that case because the challenged order there was alleged to be without jurisdiction.

The appellant did not participate in BPCL’s dealership selection process and established no infringement of a vested, legal or fundamental right. His objection rested on the effect the proposed outlet might have on his business.

Applying Nagar Rice & Flour Mills, Jasbhai Motibai Desai and Mithilesh Garg, the Court held that commercial competition alone did not confer standing. It found M.S. Jayaraj inapplicable because the present challenge was not founded on the same jurisdictional circumstances

It affirmed the Single Judge’s order and dismissed the writ appeal, with parties bearing their own costs; any pending application was also dismissed