Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar
Supreme Court of India, 19 December 1975, 4 judges, 1976 AIR 578, 1976 SCR (3) 58, 1976 SCC (1) 671
A rival cinema owner who suffers only loss from lawful competition is not a 'person aggrieved' and has no locus standi to seek certiorari under Article 226 against a No-objection Certificate granted to a competitor.
Facts
Respondents 1 and 2 applied to the District Magistrate, Kaira, under the Bombay Cinema Rules, 1954 for a No-objection Certificate for a cinema theatre on their site in Mehmadabad. Objections were invited by public notice; the appellants, who owned a cinema in the town, did not object. The District Magistrate reported that the site was unfit, but the State Government disagreed and directed him to grant the certificate, which he did on 27-11-1970. The appellants filed a writ petition in the Gujarat High Court, contending that the grant suffered from lack of jurisdiction because the District Magistrate acted at the Government's dictation. The High Court accepted that the grant suffered from a patent lack of jurisdiction but dismissed the petition because no right of the appellants had been infringed, so they were not aggrieved persons.
Questions before the Court
- Is the proprietor of a licensed cinema theatre entitled to invoke certiorari jurisdiction ex debito justitiae to quash a No-objection Certificate granted to a rival in the trade on the ground of defect of jurisdiction?
- Who is an 'aggrieved person' having locus standi to seek certiorari under Article 226?
What the Court held
- To have locus standi under Article 226 an applicant should ordinarily have a personal or individual right in the subject matter. This is not a cast-iron rule: it covers those prejudicially affected by an authority's act, and in exceptional cases a stranger with a substantial and genuine interest.
- Applicants for certiorari fall into three categories: person aggrieved, stranger, and busybody or meddlesome interloper. The Court set out broad tests, varying with the statutory context, to separate persons aggrieved from strangers, such as infringement of a legal right, legal injury, and a special grievance beyond that of the public.
- The Bombay Cinematograph Act and Rules regulate private rights to carry on business and give a rival in cinema trade no substantive justiciable right, so 'person aggrieved' must be strictly construed. The appellant had not even objected when objections were invited.
- Loss of business from a rival cinema is damnum sine injuria: harm from lawful competition that injures no legal right or legally protected interest. The appellant was therefore not a person aggrieved and had no locus standi.
- Even treating him as a stranger, no exceptional circumstances justified certiorari; relief would eliminate healthy competition, perpetuate his monopoly and injure the respondents' rights under Article 19(1)(g). The appeal was dismissed without entering upon the merits.
Why it matters
The judgment lays down a framework for standing in certiorari: the threefold classification of person aggrieved, stranger and busybody, and a set of tests for identifying a person aggrieved according to the statutory context. It holds that loss from lawful trade competition is damnum sine injuria and gives no locus standi, and insists on a strict ascertainment of standing at the outset because writ petitions are filed in the High Courts by the thousand.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“That apart, in exceptional cases even a stranger or a person who was not a party to the proceedings before the authority, but has a substantial and genuine interest in the subject matter of the proceedings will be covered by this rule.”
“It will be seen that in the context of locus standi to apply for a writ of certiorari, an applicant may ordinarily fall in any of these categories: (i) ’person aggrieved’; (ii) ’stranger’; (iii) busybody or meddlesome interloper. Persons in the last category are easily distinguishable from those coming under the first two categories. Such persons interfere in things which do not concern them. They masquerade as crusaders for justice.”
“Thus, in substance, the appellant’s stand is that the setting up of a rival cinema house in the town will adversely affect his monopolistic commercial interest, causing pecuniary harm and loss of business from competition. Such harm or Loss is not wrongful in the eye of law, because it does not result in injury to a legal right or a legally protected interest, the business competition causing it being a lawful activity.”
“While a Procrustean approach should be avoided, as a rule the Court should not interfere at the instance of a ’stranger’ unless there are exceptional circumstances involving a grave miscarriage of justice having an adverse impact on public interests.”
Provisions interpreted
- Article 226, Constitution
- Sections 8A and 8B, Bombay Cinematograph Act, 1918
- Rules 4 to 6, Bombay Cinema Rules, 1954
Case and bench
- Parties
- Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed
- Case
- Civil Appeal No. 2035 of 1971
- Decided
- 19 December 1975
- Bench
- Ranjit Singh Sarkaria, A.N. Ray (CJ), M. Hameedullah Beg, P.N. Shingal
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Judgment of the Court delivered by Sarkaria, J.
Questions on this case
1 question in live Law Maker papers mentions this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.