Rajoo Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

constitution- status of petitioner - article 226 of constitution of india - petitioner under writ sought ban on his rival's business - held, petitioner has no locus standi even if license of his rival is illegal. - orderm. katju and prakash krishna, jj.1. heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.2. the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the excise commissioner, uttar pradesh and the district magistrate, mahrajganj to remove the country made wine shop of respondent no. 4. in our opinion, the petitioner has no locus standi in the matter. in mithlesh garg v. union of india and ors., air 1993 sc 443, the supreme court observed, following its own decision in rice and flour mills v. state of u. p. and ors., air 1971 sc 46 and jaspal and ors. v. state and ors., air 1976 sc 578, that a rival businessman has no locus standi to file a writ petition under article 226 of the constitution even if grant of licence to his rival is illegal. this view has been followed by this court in hari prasad gupta v. zila panchayat. 1995 (2) awc 929 : (1995) 2 uplbec 1171 and supreme court in north plastic castings ltd. v. hindustan photo film company, jt 1997 (3) sc 101.3. following the above decisionswe hold that the petitioner has nolocus standi to maintain the writpetition. the writ petition isaccordingly dismissed.