IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15506 of 2010 RAMA SHANKAR DWIVEDI, son of late Sheo Prashidh Dwivedi, resident of village and P.O. Jigna Dubey, P.S. Bhorey, District- Gopalganj… Petitioner Versus 1. THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. Ltd., registered office 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai through the Chairman-cum- Managing Director. 2. The Chairman-cum- Managing Director, The Hindustan petroleum Corporation Ltd., registered office 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai. 3. The General Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Lok Nayak jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bungalow Chowk, Patna. 4. The Senior Area Manager (Retail), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dakbunglow Chowk, Patna. 5. The Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 6th Floor, Lok Nayak Jai prakash Bhawan, Dak Bungalow Chowk, Patna. 6. The Area Manbager (Retail) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bungalow Chowk, Patna. 7. Sunita Kumari, daughter of Sri Rajendra Dubey, resident of village and P.O.Jigna Dubey, P.S.Bhorey, District-Gopalganj….. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, Advocate Ms. Anita Kumari, Advocate For Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.: Mr. Rajeev Prakash, Advocate ------ 2. 22.9.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The petitioner, who has filed this writ petition, has not stated as to what is his locus standi to maintain the present writ petition. He was not an applicant for the allotment of dealership of the retail outlet of the respondent company for the location in question. He has not further stated that he is in any way affected by the selection of respondent No.7 for the dealership of the said retail outlet. Even in the - 2 - guidelines for selection of retail outlet dealerships issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and which are being followed by the respondent oil company, it is provided in clause 19 that a complaint may be sent to the oil company by an “aggrieved person”. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the petitioner does not fall in the category of aggrieved person. He, however, submits that the complaint filed by the petitioner has been entertained and enquired into by the authorities of the respondent oil company and they have come to certain conclusions against respondent No.7 but not acted in terms of the guidelines in the matter and thus he has the right to maintain the writ petition. This Court does not accept the said submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. The right of the petitioner to approach this Court can only arise if his legal right is violated by the State or other authority exercising executive or statutory power. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show that there has been any violation of the right of the petitioner. The mere - 3 - entertainment of the grievance/complaint of the petitioner by the respondent oil company under a mistaken notion of the requirement under the guidelines cannot confer any right upon the petitioner. The respondent oil company was not even required to consider the complaint of the petitioner and the consideration of the complaint of the petitioner cannot confer any right upon the petitioner to maintain this writ petition when no legal or fundamental right of the petitioner has been violated. Therefore, the writ application is not entertainable at the behest of the petitioner and it is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )