IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.875 of 2011. Rita Kumari wife of Late Sanjay Kumar, R/o Mohalla Nahrunagar, Gobarwahi P.S. Muzaffarpur Sadar, District Muzaffarpur . ……………Appellant. Versus 1.The State Of Bihar. 2.The D.M., Muzaffarpur. 3.The Dy-Collector, Land Reforms, Muzaffarpur 4.The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Through its Chairman. 5.The Chairman, IOC. 6.The General Manager, I.O.C. 7.The Regional Manager, I.O.C. 8.The Sr.Area Manager, I.O.C. Ltd., Marketing Division, Eastern Region Shashi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna. ….. Respondents. ----------- For the appellant : Mr. N.K.Agrawal,Sr.Advocate. For the IOCL : Mr.Anil Kumar Jha, Sr.Adv. For the State : Ms. Manisha Singh, A.C. to G.A.I. 2. 26.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the I.O.C and perused the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order and other relevant materials clearly shows that the advertisement indicated three types of locations for dealership, i.e. (i) Urban, (ii) Urban/rural and (iii) rural. The advertisement shows that the authorities of the Indian Oil Corporation had not defined the three terms for the area but before taking final decision in the matter, as appears from Annexure-9, they came to a definite conclusion as to what would be the meaning of the three locations. The urban location has been defined as one within the municipal limits. The grievance of the writ petitioner/appellant is that on 2 such subsequent discussion and clarification, no decision could have been taken by the authorities of the Indian Oil Corporation to reject the application of the appellant for show-room/dealership in urban area of Muzaffarpur town, although his site is beyond he Municipal limits. We are in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the writ Court not only for the reasons indicated in the order under appeal but also for the reason that we do not find that the advertisement created any right in the appellant by providing any definition of ‘urban site’. Had the urban area been defined differently in the advertisement, the appellant could have raised a genuine grievance but in the facts of the case, in our view, no right had accrued to the petitioner and she is not, in any way, prejudiced by the subsequent decision/clarification made before the application was considered and rejected. In matters relating to contract and business deals some space for play in the joints is required to be available to the parties so that they may protect their genuine interest. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the writ Court. The appeal is dismissed. Jay/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)