R.A. Sharma, J. - (1.) IN order to encourage the establishment of new cinema halls the Government of U.P. had issued order dated 18 -7 -1989, whereunder provision for giving grant -in -aid to new cinema, halls, has been made. In order to avail of the benefit of grants -in -aid, the respondent No. 3 has established a new cinema hall in a village near the town of Mohammadabad district Mau. 2. Petitioners, who claim to be holders of licence granted to them in 1983 Under Cinematograph Act for running a cinema hall known as Tripathi Chitra Mandir within the territory of Town Area Mohammadabad district Mau, have challenged the establishment of a new cinema hall by the respondent No. 3 and the sanction of grant -in -aid for it. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made two submissions in support of the writ petition, viz. (1) a new cinema hall could not have been established in a village near the town of Mohammadabad, the population of which is about fifteen thousand, on the basis of grant -in -aid, because as per Government Order itself in a town the population of which is less than twenty thousand, there should not be more than one cinema hall, and (ii) on account of establishment of new cinema hall near Mohammabad there will be loss of business of the petitioners from competition which will result in pecuniary loss to them.
(2.) IT is not possible to agree with the learned counsel for two reasons, firstly, the respondent No. 3 has not established a cinema hall in the town of Mohammadabad as is clear from paragraph 8 of the writ petition itself in which it has been mentioned that cinema hall of the respondent No. 3 has been established in a village of Tahsil Mohammadabad and not in Mohammadabad itself; and secondly, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge establishment of and the grant -in -aid for the new cinema hall of the respondent No. 3. Neither Cinematograph Act nor the Rules framed thereunder nor the aforesaid Government Order dated 18 -7 -1989 confers any right on the petitioners to raise objection against establishment of new cinema hall. Unless such a right is conferred on a person by or under statute or by the Constitution, he cannot challenge the right of rival in his trade to carry on business. In J.M. Desai v. Roshan Kumar : AIR 1976 SC 578 the question raised was as to whether proprietor of cinema theatre holding licence for exhibiting cinematograph films, is entitled to invoke jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the 'No Objection Certificate' granted by the District Magistrate in favour of a rival in the trade. Supreme Court has held that such a person had no locus standi to invoke jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for challenging the certificate granted to a rival in the trade. Relevant passage from the judgment of the Supreme Court is reproduced herein below: In the light of the above discussion, it is demonstrably clear that the appellant has not been denied or deprived of legal right. He has not sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In fact, the impugned order does not operate as a decision against him much less does it wrongfully affect his title to something. He has not been subjected to a legal wrong. He has suffered no legal grievance. He has no legal peg for a justifiable claim to hang on. Therefore, he is not a 'person aggrieved' and has no locus standi to challenge the grant of No Objection certificate.
(3.) Similarly in the case of Rice & Flour Mills v. N.T. Gowda, : AIR 1971 SC 246 the Supreme Court held that Rice Mill owner has no locus standi to challenge, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the setting up of a new Rice Mill by another trader even if such setting up is in contravention of law because no right vested in the petitioner therein has been infringed, Following its above decisions Supreme Court has reiterated the same principle in the case of Mithilesh Garg, v. Union of India : AIR 1992 SC 443. While dealing with the question of right of existing stage carriage operators under the new Motor Vehicles Act for challenging the grant of new permits. Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution or any other provision of law does not guarantee protection from competition to the petitioners. The loss of income on account of competition does not result in injury to the legal right of the business man. In this connection Supreme Court has laid down in the case of J.M. Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Supra (Supra) as under:;