Madrasdated High Court · 2007

4.The President, Deviyakurichi Panchayat, Salem District... Respondents5.Thalaivasal Panchayat, Rep., by its President T.Jesintha,Thalaivasal Post, Attur Taluk,Salem District... 5th Respondent(R.5 impleaded as per WPMP No.2/2006 dated 12.1.2007)WP Nos.18689 and 21020 of 2006: Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of Constitutionof India praying for issue of Writs of Declaration, declaringRule 8(1) and Section 242(2)(xxxvii) of Tamil Nadu Panchayats(Opening and Maintenance of Market) Rules, 2000 as illegal,unconstitutional and ultra vires the provisions of the PanchayatsAct, 1994.W.P.No.13180/2006: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitutionof India praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,calling for the records on the files of the second respondentpertaining to the order passed in Na.Ka.No.2592/2005/A5 dated26.4.2006 quash the same and consequently direct the respondentsto forbear from interfering with the petitioners right to run theprivate market at Deviakurichi Panchayat as per the renewedlicence dated 31.3.2006 for the year 2006-2007 and valid for theperiod from 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007.WP No.24382/2006: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitutionof India praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorari, calling forthe records of the first respondent herein inNa.Ka.No.3878/2006/A5 dated 10.6.2006 in respect of the privatedaily market in Deviakurichi Panchayat in Salem District andquash the same. For Petitioner in WPs.18169, 21020, 24382/06: Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for Ms.AL.Ganthimathi For Petitioner in WP.13180/06: Mrs. A. V. Bharathi for Mr. C. Muthukumar For Respondents in WP.Nos. 18689 & 21020/06 and 1 to 3 in WP.24382 and 13180/06: Mr.S.Ramasamy, Addl. Advocate General for Mr.K.Elango, Special Govt. Pleader. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Respondent-5 inWPs 18689, 13180/2006 and: Mr.C.Selvaraju,24382/2006 Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Mani. For Respondent-4in WPs 13180 and24382/2006: Mr.P.Jagadeesan COMMON ORDERDeviakurichi Panchayat forms part of the ThalaivasalPanchayat Union. There was a Private Daily Vegetable Market inDeviakurichi Panchayat, located in Survey No.47/3, which was rununder a licence granted by the Panchayat in accordance with theprovisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. The original licencewas in favour of three persons and was granted on 17.2.1999 andthe licence was renewed from time to time till 31.3.2005. Thesaid Private Market was discontinued thereafter.2. After the aforesaid Private Market was discontinued,a Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies RegistrationAct, 1975 known as "Tamizhaga Vivasayeegal Sangam", filed anapplication to run a Private Daily Vegetable Market in SurveyNos.37/8B, 39/9, 39/10 and 39/11 in Deviakurichi Panchayat. By aresolution dated 25.2.2005, the Deviakurichi Panchayat grantedlicence to the said Association for the period from 1.4.2005 to31.3.2006. However, the said licence was cancelled by theDistrict Collector, Salem (Inspector of Panchayats) by hisproceedings dated 11.5.2005 and 17.5.2005.3. Challenging the cancellation of licence by theDistrict Collector, the said Association viz., TamizhagaVivasayeegal Sangam filed a writ petition in W.P.No.17055 of2005. The said writ petition was allowed by an order dated26.9.2005 on the short ground that the District Collector failedto afford an opportunity to the licencee before cancelling thelicence. Consequently, the cancellation order was set aside bythis Court and the matter remitted back to the District Collectorfor taking action in accordance with law.4. In accordance with the directions issued by thisCourt in W.P.No.17055 of 2005, the District Collector issued ashow cause notice dated 8.10.2005. Immediately on receipt of thesaid notice, the Association filed a writ petition inW.P.No.34974 of 2005, challenging the validity of Rule 8(1) ofthe Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Opening and Maintenance of Market)Rules, 2000 (hereinafter called as the 'Rules'). The challenge tothe Rule was made, since the said Rule sought to place arestriction upon the right of a person to set up a private marketwithin a radius of 10 kms from a public market and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cancellation of the licence granted to the "TamizhagaVivasayeegal Sangam" was sought to be made only by invoking theprovisions of the said Rule 8(1).5. Since the Sangam filed W.P.No.34974 of 2005,challenging the validity of Rule 8(1) of the Rules, the noticedated 8.10.2005 issued by the District Collector was stayed bythis Court by an interim order dated 28.10.2005. The said interimorder was challenged in a writ appeal in W.A.SR.No.89089 of 2005.But the same was dismissed by the Division Bench by an orderdated 15.11.2005. Subsequently, the interim order granted on28.10.2005 in WPMP No.37920 of 2005 in W.P.No.34974 of 2005 wasmade absolute on 17.2.2006.6. After the interim stay of further proceedingspursuant to the notice of the District Collector dated 8.10.2005was made absolute in W.P.No.34974 of 2005, the DeviakurichiPanchayat passed a resolution on 31.3.2006 renewing the licencefor the year 2006-2007 viz., for the period from 1.4.2006 to31.3.2007.7. After the renewal of licence, the "TamizhagaVivasayeegal Sangam" withdrew the writ petition in W.P.No.34974of 2005 and consequently the interim order also got vacated.Thereafter, the District Collector (Inspector of Panchayats)passed an order dated 26.4.2006 in pursuance of his notice dated8.10.2005, cancelling the original order of grant of licencedated 25.2.2005. Challenging the said order dated 26.4.2006,cancelling the original grant itself, the "Tamizhaga VivasayeegalSangam" has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.13180 of 2006.8. Thereafter, one of the persons carrying on businessin the Deviakurichi Private Market filed an independent writpetition in W.P.No.18689 of 2006, challenging the validity ofRule 8(1) of the Rules. Obviously, this writ petition has beennecessitated on account of the fact that the "TamizhagaVivasayeegal Sangam" itself withdrew its challenge to the verysame Rule in W.P.No.34974 of 2005, without reserving liberty tofile another writ petition.9. But subsequently, the Tamil Nadu AgriculturistsAssociation filed an independent writ petition in W.P.No.21020 of2006, challenging not only the aforesaid Rule 8(1) but alsochallenging the constitutional validity of Section 242 (2)(xxxvii) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (hereinaftercalled as the 'Act').10. In the meantime, the District Collector passedanother order dated 10.6.2006, cancelling the resolution of theDeviakurichi Panchayat dated 31.3.2006 by which the licenceoriginally granted for the year 2005-2006 was renewed for theyear 2006-2007. Therefore, challenging the said order dated10.6.2006, the Association filed the fourth writ petition inW.P.No.24382 of 2006. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11. Thus in effect, there are four writ petitions inW.P.Nos.13180, 18689, 21020 and 24382 of 2006, wherein thepetitioners seek the following reliefs:-(a)W.P.No.13180 of 2006:- To set aside theorder of the Collector dated 26.4.2006,cancelling the grant of the original licenceitself.(b) W.P.No.24382 of 2006:- Challenging theorder of the Collector dated 10.6.2006,cancelling the renewal of the licence for theyear 2006-2007.(c) W.P.No.18689 of 2006:- For declaringRule 8(1) of the Rules as unconstitutional.(d) W.P.No.21020 of 2006:- To declareSection 242 (2)(xxxvii) of the Act and Rule 8(1) as unconstitutional.12. I have heard Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned seniorcounsel appearing for the petitioners in all the writ petitions,Mr.S.Ramasamy, learned Additional Advocate General appearing forthe official respondents, Mr.C.Selvaraju, learned senior counselappearing for the Thalaivasal Panchayat, which is the fifthrespondent in the writ petitions viz., W.P.Nos.18689 and 13180 of2006 and Mr.P.Jagadeesan, learned counsel appearing for DeviaKurichi Panchayat, which has granted the licence and renewed itin favour of the "Tamizhaga Vivasayeegal Sangam".13. As stated earlier, Deviakurichi Panchayat is one ofthe Panchayats coming within the Thalaivasal Panchayat Union.Thalaivasal Panchayat Union has a Public Market (Daily VegetableMarket), in existence from 1979. The Private Market for whichlicence was granted by Deviakurichi Panchayat in favour of"Tamizhaga Vivasayeegal Sangam" is located within a distance of 2kms., from the Public Market in Thalaivasal. Therefore,objections were raised for the grant of licence to the PrivateMarket at Deviakurichi, primarily on the ground that the businessin the Public Market at Thalaivasal suffered a serious set backon account of the Private Market and that the Private Market atDeviakurichi ought not to have been granted a licence, in view ofthe prohibition contained in Rule 8(1) of the Rules. The saidcontention that the grant of licence for a Private Market by theDeviakurichi Panchayat was violative of Rule 8(1) of theaforesaid Rules was upheld by the District Collector (Inspectorof Panchayats) by his orders dated 26.4.2006 and 10.6.2006.14. One more ground on which the District Collectorsought to cancel the licence granted for the Private Market wasthat the licence was granted by the Deviakurichi Panchayatwithout ascertaining the opinion of the Deputy Director of PublicHealth and Preventive Medicine as required by Rule 7(3) of thesaid Rules. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

15. Thus, the cancellation of licence granted for thePrivate Market, hinges upon the scope of Rules 7 and 8 of theaforesaid Rules.16. Before proceeding to consider the scope of theaforesaid Rules, it is necessary to look into the substantiveprovisions contained in the Act and the relevant Rules. Section147 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, deals with theopening of Public Markets, while Section 148 of the Act dealswith licensing of Private Markets. Sections 147 and 148 of theAct read as follows:-"147. Public Markets.--(1) The panchayatunion council may, after obtaining the previouswritten permission of the Inspector, provideplaces for use as public markets and, with thesanction of the Inspector, close any suchmarket or part thereof.(2) Subject to such rules *as may beprescribed, the village panchayat or panchayatunion council may after obtaining the previouswritten permission of the Inspector, levy anyone or more of the following fees in any publicmarket at such rates, not exceeding the maximumrates, if any, prescribed in that behalf as thepanchayat union council or village panchayatmay think fit:-(a) ............(b) ............(c) ............(d) ............(e) ............148. Licensing of Private Markets.--(1)Noperson shall open a new private market orcontinue to keep open a private market unlesshe has obtained a licence from the villagepanchayat or panchayat union council, as thecase may be, to do so. Such licence shall berenewed every year.(2)(a) The village panchayat or panchayatunion council, as the case may be, shall grantthe licence applied for subject to suchconditions as it may think fit as tosupervision and inspection, sanitation, weightsand measures to be used, rents and fees to becharged and such other matters *as may beprescribed".(b)............(c)............(d)............"17. Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Opening andMaintenance of Market) Rules, 2000, deals with the opening andmaintenance of Public Markets by the Panchayats Union, while Rule https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 deals with the opening and maintenance of Public Market by theVillage Panchayat. Rule 4(3) is of relevance to the issue on handand it reads as follows:-"(3) Notwithstanding anything contained inthese rules, no new market shall be permitted,if it will affect the commercial validity ofthe already existing market either private orpublic, situated within 5 kilo metre radiusfrom the proposed place."18. Rule 7 deals with the licensing procedure for aPrivate Market. Sub Rule (1) and Sub Rule (3) of Rule 7 of theRules read as follows:-"7. Licence for Private market.--(1) Noperson shall open and maintain a private marketwithout obtaining a licence from the villagepanchayat. Such licence shall be renewed everyyear.(2)............(3) In case the village panchayat or thepanchayat union council agrees to approve theproposal, the executive authority or thecommissioner, as the case may be, shall sendthe proposal to the Deputy Director of PublicHealth and Preventive Medicine of the Districtconcerned for his opinion as to the suitabilityof the site on public health point of viewwithin thirty days of the receipt of theproposal from the executive authority, or thecommissioner, as the case may be, the DeputyDirector of Public Health and PreventiveMedicine shall communicate his remarks, failingwhich, the approval sought for, shall be deemedto have been granted."19. From a perusal of Sections 147 and 148 of the Act,it is seen that Section 147 merely enables the Panchayat UnionCouncil to provide places for use as Public Markets and it doesnot speak about the grant of licence. On the contrary, Section148 speaks of a licence to open a Private Market. But Rules 3 and4 of the aforesaid Rules, speak about the opening and maintenanceof Public Markets and the permission to be obtained from theInspector of Panchayats, though no procedure for licensing iscontemplated in so far as a Public Market is concerned.20. In so far as the grant of licence for a PrivateMarket is concerned, Section 148(2) requires the VillagePanchayat or the Panchayat Union Council to grant the licencesubject to certain terms and conditions relating to (1)supervision and inspection, (2) sanitation, (3) weights andmeasures to be used, (4) rents and fees to be charged and (5)such other matters as may be prescribed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

21. The Rules aforesaid were actually issued underG.O.Ms.No.3, Rural Development (C.4) Department, dated 4.1.2001,for the purpose of prescribing those "such other matters" asstipulated under Section 148(2)(a) of the Act.22. In respect of a Public Market, Rules 3 and 4 enlistthe criteria relevant for the purpose of enabling the Inspectorof Panchayats to grant or refuse permission and they are asfollows:-(a) Commercial viability of the proposedmarket within a radius of 10 kms., (b) Acceptability of the proposed marketby the public and the traders.(c) Health and sanitation aspect specifiedby the Deputy Director of Public Health andPreventive Medicine.23. Apart from the aforesaid three considerationsspecified as relevant considerations, in so far as the grant ofpermission for a Public Market is concerned, Rule 4(3) extractedabove, imposes a prohibition for permitting a new Public Marketwithin a radius of 5 kms., from an existing Private or PublicMarket. Thus, the relevant considerations enlisted under Rule 3(2)(a)(b) and (c) as well as Rule 4(2)(a)(b) and (c) as extractedabove, are actually circumscribed by the prohibition containedunder Rule 4(3) in so far as the permission for a Public Marketis concerned.24. However, the language employed under Rules 7 and 8while prescribing the considerations as well as the procedure forthe grant of licence for a Private Market, is totally differentfrom the language employed under Rules 3 and 4. Rule 7(2) of theRules requires a Person, a Firm or a Co-operative Society or thePanchayat Union Council which intends to open a Private Market toapply to the Executive Authority of the Village Panchayat or theCommissioner of the Panchayat Union Council seeking licence. Uponreceipt of such an application, the Executive Authority of thePanchayat or the Commissioner of the Panchayat Union Council isrequired under Rule 7(3) and Rule 8 of the Rules, to take thefollowing steps:-(a) Inspect the site and satisfy himselfabout its possibility of not affecting anyPublic Market of the Village Panchayat or thePanchayat Union Council, if any, functioningwithin a reasonable radius of 10 kms.(b) Place the proposal before the VillagePanchayat or the Panchayat Union Council alongwith his remarks on the precautions for adecision on the proposal.(c) If the Village Panchayat or thePanchayat Union Council agrees to approve the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ proposal, send the proposal to the DeputyDirector of Public Health and PreventiveMedicine of the District concerned for hisopinion as to the suitability of the site onpublic health point of view.(d) Communicate the decision of theVillage Panchayat to the applicant and (e) Publish a Notification in the DistrictGazette.25. From a conjoint reading of Rule 4(3) and 8(1), itis seen that the 5 kms radius embargo under Rule 4(3) appears tobe mandatory, while the 10 kms radius factor appears to be onlyone of the several considerations to be taken into account.Interestingly, the 5 kms radius embargo is placed in relation tothe opening of a Public Market while the 10 kms radius factor isin relation to the opening of a Private Market. Therefore, areading of both the Rules together leads to an inevitableconclusion that despite the functioning of a Public Market withina radius of 10 kms., the Executive Authority of the Panchayat andthe Village Panchayat are entitled to grant licence to a PrivateMarket. In other words, despite the location of a Public Marketwithin a radius of 10 kms., the Village Panchayat is entitled totake a decision to grant a licence to a Private Market.26. Once it is found that the 10 kms radiusprescription under Rule 8 (1) is only one of the several factorsto be taken into account by the Licensing Authority, what remainsto be seen is as to whether the Licensing Authority applied itsmind to this relevant factor before deciding to grant thelicence. The Licensing Authority viz., Deviakurichi Panchayat hasfiled a counter-affidavit pointing out three factors viz., (a)that they had taken into account the existence of the PublicMarket at Thalaivasal within a radius of 10 kms.; (b) that theexistence of a Private Market within Deviakurichi Panchayat isessential for its own sustenance since it provided an income ofRs.2,35,566/- in the form of licence fee; and (c) that anotherPrivate Market in Survey No.47/3 was run from the year 1999onwards with renewal granted year after after, without anyobjections or protest from Thalaivasal Panchayat Union PublicMarket.27. Therefore, it is clear that the Executive Authorityof Deviakurichi Panchayat and the Village Panchayat took intoconsideration the relevant factors before granting licence on25.2.2005 and renewing the same by the resolution dated31.3.2006. Once it is found that the Licensing Authority tookinto account the relevant factors before taking a decision togrant the licence, the power of the Appellate Authority viz., theInspector of Panchayats (District Collector) gets circumscribed.The power of the Inspector of Panchayats to revoke any resolutionpassed by a Village Panchayat is found in Section 202 of the Act.Section 202 (1) reads as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "202. Power to suspend or cancelresolution, etc. under the Act.--(1) TheInspector may, by order in writing ---(i) suspend or cancel any resolutionpassed, order issued, or licence or permissiongranted, or(ii) prohibit the doing of any act whichis about to be done or is being done, inpursuance or under colour of this Act, if inhis opinion, --(a) such resolution, order, licence,permission or act has not been legally passed,issued, granted or authorised, or(b) such resolution, order, licence,permission or act is in excess of the powersconferred by this Act or any other law or anabuse of such powers or is considered by theInspector to be otherwise undesirable, or(c) the execution of such resolution ororder, or the continuance in force of suchlicence or permission or the doing of such actis likely to cause danger to human life,health or safety, or is likely to lead to ariot or an affray:Provided that nothing in this sub-sectionshall enable the Inspector to set aside anyelection which has been held."28. In this case, the order dated 26.4.2006 cancellingthe original grant of licence and the order dated 10.6.2006cancelling the renewal, have been passed by the DistrictCollector in exercise of the power conferred under Section 202(1)(ii)(a) and (c). In other words, the District Collector haspassed the orders under challenge, after coming to the conclusionthat the resolution passed by the Deviakurichi Panchayat was notlegally passed and that the execution of such resolution islikely to cause danger to human life, health or safety or islikely to lead to a riot or an affray.29. Therefore, we have to examine whether theresolution passed by the Deviakurichi Panchayat was legallypassed or not and whether the execution of the resolution islikely to cause danger to human life, health or safety or likelyto lead a riot or an affray.30. As stated earlier, the Executive Authority of theDeviakurichi Panchayat as well as the Village Panchayat havetaken into account the relevant considerations before issuing thelicence to the Private Market. The resolution is attacked only ontwo grounds viz., (a) that it violates the 10 kms radius Ruleunder Rule 8(1); and (b) that the opinion of the Deputy Directorof Public Health and Preventive Medicine was not obtained. Sincethe 10 kms radius Rule is not a total prohibition but only one ofthe relevant factors to be taken into account by the Executive https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Authority, the resolution cannot be said to be illegal on theground of violation of the 10 kms radius Rule, since the same hasbeen taken into consideration by the Executive Authority. Hence,the first ground on which the resolution is considered to havebeen not legally passed, fails. 31. In so far as the second ground is concerned, Rule 7(3) extracted above, contains a deeming provision if the DeputyDirector of Public Health and Preventive Medicine fails to offerhis remarks within 30 days of receipt of the proposal. In paras-8and 9 of the counter-affidavit filed by the DeviakurichiPanchayat, a positive averment is made that an application wasmade to the Deputy Director on 28.5.2005 itself and that theOfficers inspected the place long time back. Therefore, thedeeming provision under Rule 7(3) has come into play. Under suchcircumstances, both the grounds on which the District Collectorconsidered the resolution of the Panchayat to have been notlegally passed in terms of Section 202 (1)(ii)(a) of the Act,fail.32. Coming to the likelihood of danger to human life,health or safety or the likelihood of a riot or an affray,provided as one of the grounds for cancellation of resolutionunder Section 202(1)(ii)(c), the District Collector has notrecorded any outbreak of violence or hazard to health or safety,on account of the grant of licence by Deviakurichi Panchayat forthe Private Market. It is admitted by the District Collectorhimself even under the impugned order that a Private Market wasin existence in Deviakurichi Panchayat from the year 1999 and thesame had already had an impact upon the income of the PublicMarket at Thalaivasal from 1999 onwards. The existence of aPrivate Market in Deviakurichi Panchayat from the year 1999 hadnot resulted in any danger to human life, health or safety andhas not led to any riot or affray. The Private Market run inDeviakurichi Panchayat from the year 1999 in Survey No.47/3 wasclosed in the year 2005 and the Deviakurichi Panchayat hasgranted a licence to "Tamizhaga Vivasayeegal Sangam" on 25.2.2005to run a Private Market in another Survey Number. The Presidentof Deviakurichi Panchayat filed an affidavit to the effect thatthe Private Market which was in existence from 1999 was alsolocated within a distance of 2 kms from the Public Market atThalaivasal and the new Market for which licence was granted on25.2.2005 is located at a distance of half a kilo metre from theold Private Market in Deviakurichi. 33. Thus, in my considered view, the grounds on whichthe Collector is empowered to cancel the resolution of a VillagePanchayat under Section 202(1)(ii)(a) and (c) were not availablefor the District Collector in the present case. Consequently, theorders of the Collector dated 26.4.2006 and 10.6.2006 cancellingthe resolutions of Deviakurichi Panchayat granting licence forthe year 2005-2006 and renewing the same for the year 2006-2007are liable to be set aside. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

34. As seen from the orders of the District Collectorimpugned in the writ petitions, the District Collector had beencarried away mainly by the fact that the income of the PublicMarket in Thalaivasal Panchayat Union fell rapidly after theopening of the Private Market in Deviakurichi Panchayat. But thefall in income for the Public market at Thalaivasal started from1999 onwards. Thalaivasal Panchayat did not raise a little fingerin protest against the licensing of a Private Market from theyear 1999-2000 and the renewals granted to the same for the years2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005.Therefore, Thalaivasal Panchayat cannot object to the grant oflicence to a Private Market for the year 2005-2006 and itsrenewal in 2006-2007.35. The Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, itself wasenacted with a view to establish a Three Tire Panchayat RajSystem in keeping with the Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act,1992, relating to Panchayats, for greater participation of thepeople so as to make them institutions of self-government.Therefore, each Panchayat is entitled to augment its ownfinancial resources for the purpose of achieving self-governance.On the ground that the income of a Public Market located in onePanchayat Union, is affected by the licence granted to a PrivateMarket in another Panchayat, such right to self-governance vestedupon each Panchayat cannot be taken away or interfered with. ThePublic Market at Thalaivasal will have to sustain itself, on thebasis of its own merits, in the wake of competition from aPrivate Market in a neighbouring Panchayat. It cannot seek tokill healthy competition by seeking protection under statutoryprovisions. In Nataraj Agencies vs. The Secretary, Ministry ofPetroleum and Natural Gas (2005 (1) CTC 394), the Division Benchof this Court held as follows:-"3. The Supreme Court in Mithilesh Garg vs.Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 443, held that arival businessman cannot file a writ petition,challenging the setting-up of a similar unit byanother business-place would adversely affecthis business interest, even if the setting-up ofthe new unit is in violation of law. InMithilesh case, cited supra, the Supreme Courtfollowed its own decision in Rice and FlourMills vs. N.t.Gowda, AIR 1971 SC 246, wherein itwas held that a rice mill-owner has no locusstandi to challenge under Article 226, thesetting up of a new rice-mill by another even ifsuch setting up be in contravention of S.8(3)(c)of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act,1958 because no right vested in such anapplicant is infringed.4. In the present case, the only grievanceof the appellant is that if the fourthrespondent is permitted to set up her retain https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ outlet within one kilometer radius of theappellant's outlet, his business interest wouldbe adversely affected. In our opinion, theappellant has no locus standi at all to complainagainst the setting up of a rival retail outletby the fourth respondent, near his place ofbusiness, on the ground that would affect hisbusiness interest, inasmuch as the damage, ifany, suffered thereby was damnum sine injuria-damage without infringement of legal right. Inour opinion, this will only result in promotingcompetition among the traders, which is good forthe consumers. Merely because some of thecustomers may switch over to the rival retailoutlet does not mean that public interest willsuffer rather, in our opinion, it will benefitthe consumers because, when there iscompetition, the businessmen are compelled toprovide better quality products at reasonablerates."Therefore, the writ petitions W.P.Nos.13180 of 2006 and 24382 of2006 are allowed and the orders of the District Collector dated26.4.2006 and 10.6.2006 are set aside. No costs.36. In view of my findings in the writ petitionsarising out of the orders of the District Collector, I do notpropose to go into the Constitutional validity of Rule 8 (1) ofthe Rules or Section 242 (2) (xxxvii) of the Act. Therefore, thewrit petitions challenging the aforesaid provisions inW.P.Nos.21020 of 2006 and 18689 of 2006 are closed. No costs.Svn.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1.The Secretary to Government, Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Rural Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.2.The District Collector, Salem.3.The Assistant Director, Rural Development, Salem. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The Block Development Officer, Thalaivasal Panchayat Union, Salem District.5.The District Collector/Inspector of Panchayats, Salem.6.The President, Deviyakurichi Panchayat Attur Taluk, Salem District.7.The President Thalaivasal Panchayat, Thalaivasal, Attur Taluk, Salem District.+ 2 ccs to Mr. S. Mani, Advocate SR No. 2608+ 1 cc to M/s. A. L. Ganthimathi, Advocate, SR No.2594+ 1 cc to Mr. P. Jagadeesan, Advocate, SR No.2578+ 1 cc to Ms. A. V. Bharathi, Advocate, SR No.2638+ 4 ccs to the Government Pleader, SR Nos. 2880 2881 2882 2883BV(CO)SR/18.1.2007 Common Order in WP Nos.18689, 21020 24382 and 13180 of 2006