Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Digambar Mawal Patil, is a dealer of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) running a petrol pump at Jalna Road, Sultanpur, District Buldhana, since 2008. He filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash a notification dated 24th November 2018 to the extent it allotted new retail outlets by IOCL, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) near Sultanpur and within Mehkar/Lonar Tahsil. He also sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to decide his representation dated 10th December 2019. The petitioner contended that the allotment of new outlets would adversely affect his business due to increased competition. The respondents, including the Union of India, IOCL, HPCL, and BPCL, opposed the petition. The court, after hearing the petitioner in person and the advocates for the respondents, held that the petitioner has no legal right to claim monopoly or to prevent the government or oil corporations from setting up new retail outlets. The court noted that the policy decision to allot new outlets is a matter of government policy and cannot be interfered with under writ jurisdiction unless it is arbitrary or violates any statutory provision. The court found no such violation and dismissed the petition, observing that competition in business is not a ground for judicial review. The court also noted that the petitioner's representation had been considered and rejected, and no further relief was warranted.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - No Right to Monopoly - The petitioner, an existing petrol pump dealer, challenged the allotment of new retail outlets by other oil corporations in the same vicinity. The court held that the petitioner has no legal right to prevent competition or to claim monopoly over the area. The policy decision of the government to allot new outlets is not subject to judicial review merely because it may affect the business of an existing dealer. (Paras 1-5) B) Petroleum Laws - Retail Outlet Allotment - Policy Decision - The court observed that the allotment of new retail outlets is a policy decision of the government and the oil corporations, and the court cannot interfere with such policy decisions unless they are arbitrary or violative of any statutory provision. The petitioner's representation was considered but no legal right was found to be infringed. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, an existing dealer of Indian Oil Corporation, has a legal right to challenge the allotment of new retail outlets by other oil corporations in the same area on the ground of competition affecting his business.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The court held that the petitioner has no legal right to claim monopoly or to prevent the government from setting up new retail outlets. The policy decision to allot new outlets is not arbitrary and does not violate any statutory provision. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- No right to monopoly
- Competition not a ground for judicial review
- Policy decision of government not interfered with lightly
