Excise licensing and locus standi: rival traders can challenge unlawful shop shifting and mandatory distance breaches.

Rival traders may have standing in writ proceedings to challenge excise licensing decisions where the location of a shop affects legal rights and revenue exposure, so a competitor is not rejected at threshold as a mere busybody. The Excise Act and Rules were read as area-specific: permission to shift a licensed shop did not authorise movement from one distinct local area to another if that would alter the sanctioned locality-wise distribution without required governmental approval. The prohibited-distance rule from places of worship or educational institutions was treated as mandatory and strictly enforceable, and a proposed site could not be approved on the basis that another shop was also allegedly non-compliant.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a rival trader had locus standi to challenge the grant or shifting of the excise licence, (ii) whether the Excise Act and Rules permitted shifting of a licensed shop from one local area to another, and (iii) whether the proposed site could be approved despite the alleged violation of the prohibited-distance requirement from places of worship or educational institutions.

Issue (i): whether a rival trader had locus standi to challenge the grant or shifting of the excise licence.

Analysis: The expansion of standing in writ jurisdiction was applied, and the objection was not rejected merely because the challenger was a competitor. Since the location of the shop affected the licence-holder's business interest and exposure to revenue consequences, the challenge could not be dismissed as that of a mere stranger or busybody at the threshold.

Conclusion: The objection on locus standi was overruled.

Issue (ii): whether the Excise Act and Rules permitted shifting of a licensed shop from one local area to another.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treated excise vending as area-specific. The power to grant leases, regulate localities, fix the number of licences in an area, and permit shifting of shops had to be read together. On that construction, the expressions permitting shifting from one place to another did not authorise movement from one distinct local area to another if that would increase the number of shops in the transferee area without the requisite governmental sanction.

Conclusion: Shifting from one distinct local area to another was not permissible under the Rules.

Issue (iii): whether the proposed site could be approved despite the alleged violation of the prohibited-distance requirement from places of worship or educational institutions.

Analysis: The distancing condition was a mandatory public-interest restriction and had to be enforced strictly. The State could not justify another violation on the footing that the existing shop of the petitioner was also said to be in breach. The record did not contain a satisfactory and positive denial of infringement.

Conclusion: The proposed site could not be approved in violation of the prohibited-distance requirement.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded because the challenged location and transfer were contrary to the statutory scheme and the distance restriction, and the preliminary objection on standing did not defeat the challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: Excise licensing provisions that fix locality-wise limits and regulate shifting of shops must be read strictly as confining transfer within the same local area, while public-law standing is not denied merely because the challenger is a rival trader where the licence is alleged to be contrary to law.

---