RAJOO Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(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 others, AIR 1993 SC 443, the Supreme Court observed following its own decision in M/s Rice and Flour Mills v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1971 SC 46 and Jaspal and others v. State and others, 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) UPLBEC 1171, and Supreme Court in North Plastic Castings Ltd. v. Hindustan Photo Film Company, JT 1997 (3) SC 101.