THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3428 of 2010 ORDER: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, respondent No.1 herein, issued notification, dated 05.10.2009, inviting applications for selection of dealers for petroleum products at various places in the state of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner submitted an application for dealership at Yellandu Cross Roads, Raghunandanpalem, Khammam District. One of the requirements is that an applicant shall file an affidavit in support of the application in the printed proforma duly furnishing certain particulars. Through letter, dated 18.02.2010, the respondents informed the petitioner that the affidavit filed by him is defective inasmuch as the description of the Corporation was given as Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited instead of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited at certain places. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same and filed this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. It is, no doubt, true that the defect in the affidavit filed by the petitioner along with his application is very trivial and deserves to be ignored for all practical purposes. However, the petitioner ought to have approached this Court before the interviews were conducted and third party rights have accrued. The letter was received by the petitioner on 22.01.2010 and the interviews were held on 29.01.2010. Many developments have taken place in the form of assessment of the merit and performance of the applicants and their selection. At this stage, the petitioner cannot be considered, even if the defect in the affidavit was trivial. In W.P.No.13978 of 2009, this Court took the view that the failure to mention nationality in the affidavit is trivial and it does not lead to disqualification of a candidate. Since the petitioner therein approached this Court well in advance, he was directed to be considered in the interview. In W.P.No.16227 of 2009, the petitioner approached after the interviews were conducted. This Court expressed its inability to grant any relief. Same circumstances exist in this writ petition also. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:22.02.2010. kdl