A rival petrol-pump operator lacks locus standi to challenge another outlet’s lawful establishment.

The petitioners operated an Indian Oil Corporation petrol pump under the name “D.K. Automobiles” at Khasra/Gata No. 68, Village Govindapur, Tehsil Sadar, District Bahraich, situated on State Highway No. 30.

They challenged the establishment of a neighbouring petrol outlet by Reliance BP Mobility Limited and respondents nos. 7 and 8, contending that the outlet violated the applicable norms governing the location, layout and access of fuel stations on State roads.

The petitioners sought quashing of the approval granted by the District Magistrate on 9 February 2026 and the No Objection Certificate issued by the City Magistrate on 13 February 2026.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the petitioners were rival businessmen seeking to prevent lawful competition and therefore lacked locus standi.

The Court also noted that a prior public-interest litigation concerning the same proposed outlet had been disposed of after the respondents relied on the amended norms and a seven-metre service road.

Whether an existing petrol-pump operator has locus standi to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the approval and NOC granted for a neighbouring petrol outlet merely because the proposed outlet may adversely affect its business.

Whether the approval and NOC granted for the proposed petrol outlet violated the applicable norms relating to minimum distance and access through a seven-metre-wide service road.

Whether the present writ petition constituted an abuse of process because the same objection had already been raised in an earlier public-interest litigation.

The Court applied the principle that a writ of certiorari under Article 226 is ordinarily available only to an “aggrieved person” whose legally protected right has been infringed, and that a business competitor cannot invoke writ jurisdiction merely to eliminate competition.

Relying on Nagar Rice and Flour Mills v. N.T. Gowda, (1970) 1 SCC 575, Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, (1976) 1 SCC 671, and Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India, (1992) 1 SCC 168, the Court held that commercial loss or apprehension of reduced profits does not create a justiciable right to prevent another person from carrying on a lawful business.

It also relied on State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, AIR 1952 SC 12, for the rule that infringement of a legal or fundamental right is foundational to the exercise of Article 226 jurisdiction.

The Court further considered Clauses 3.1 and 3.2 of the 2022 State Guidelines and the amended norms, under which the distance restriction may not apply where access and egress are provided through a common service road at least seven metres wide, subject to the prescribed conditions.

The Court found that the petitioners’ challenge was motivated principally by their status as a competing petrol-pump operator and by apprehension of financial loss, rather than by infringement of any legally protected right.

Under the cited Supreme Court authorities, the right to carry on business does not include a right to exclude competitors or preserve a monopoly.

Consequently, the petitioners lacked locus standi to challenge the respondents’ approval and NOC solely because the new outlet was proposed nearby.

On the regulatory issue, the Court noted the respondents’ reliance on the amended norms and the existence of a seven-metre-wide service road.

The State authorities further represented that the service road had already been constructed and that operation of the outlet would not be permitted without compliance with the applicable access requirements.

The Court also held that the earlier PIL had raised substantially the same objection and had been disposed of after consideration of the amended guidelines and service-road arrangement; the present petition merely recast the same challenge as one against the approval and NOC, rendering it an abuse of process.

The alleged adverse effect on the petitioners’ business could not justify judicial intervention, as the Court was not required to insure the commercial viability of an existing operator.

No fundamental or statutory right of the petitioners was shown to have been infringed, and the proposed outlet was not demonstrated to violate the applicable access norms.

The Court further found the petition substantially repetitive of the earlier PIL and abusive of the judicial process.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed for want of maintainability and on merits, with no relief granted to the petitioners.