WP(C) 4232/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.R. SARMA The respondent No. 2 vide news paper advertisement published in the Assam Tribun e dated 16.7.2005 invited Walk-In-Interview application for allotment of Retail Outlets Dealership Under Fleet Operator Category for 15 locations within the Sta tes of Assam, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh. A place named ’Gumrah’ in the dist rict of Cachar, Assam was one of the said 15 locations. The date of interview in respect of ’Gumrah’ out let was fixed on 4.8.2005 at 9.00 am. The respondent No . 4, who was one of the candidates appeared in the said interview and the dealer ship of the ’Gumrah’ out let was allotted in his favour. 2. The petitioners, who did not apply, in response to the advertisement, ha ve challenged the said allotment of retail outlet dealership in favour of respon dent No. 4 by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that, in the advertisement itself, there was no mention tha t even a person possessing some trucks would come under the category of fleet op erators and would be entitled to apply for the allotment of the dealership. Acco rding to the petitioners, as per the guidelines/ Brochure for selection of Petro l retail outlet under the ’fleet operator category’, an intending applicant shou ld have minimum 50 trucks under his possession and as the petitioners did not po ssess 50 trucks, they did not apply in response to the advertisement aforesaid, but the respondent No. 4, who also did not possess the required number of trucks was allotted the dealership in violation of the established norms. 3. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have contested the petitioners’ claim by fili ng their affidavit-in-opposition. The respondent No. 4 in his affidavit-in-oppo sition has stated that he applied in response to the advertisement dated 16.7.20 05 and he could produce the record regarding ownership of trucks owned by him an d that there was no requirement of any specific number of vehicles for getting s elected for allotment of retail outlet dealership under ’fleet operator category ’. His plea was that he was rightly selected for allotment of the said dealershi p and as such this writ petition was liable to be dismissed. 4. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd and th e Territory Manager (Retail) of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd respectively co ntested the petitioners’ claim by stating, in their affidavit-in-opposition, tha t the selection was made as per the guidelines. It was further contended that as per the advertisement, there was no restriction to apply for the dealership by a person even if he owned fleet of vehicles either owned by himself or attached to him and that the petitioner, at his own volition, had chosen not to participa te in the said selection process and as such he had no right to challenge the ad vertisement or the selection process. It is further stated, in the affidavit, th at respondent No. 4 was the owner of three numbers of heavy commercial vehicles and in addition to that he had also five numbers of commercial vehicles attached to his farm and by the said affidavit, the petitioners contention, that only a person having 50 numbers of vehicles was entitled for apply in the dealership ha s also been denied. 5. In the circumstances, the petitioners, who did not apply in response to the advertisement have come with this writ petition challenging the allotment of retail outlet dealership under ’fleet operator category’ seeking order for sett ing aside/ or canceling the selection of respondent No. 4 in pursuant to adverti sement of the said retail dealership outlet for the location at ’Gumrah’ in the district of Cachar. 6. I have heard Mr. A.M. Mazumdar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. F.K.R. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners and Mr. B. Das , learned Senior Advocate, assisted by I. H. Laskar, learned counsel appearing f or respondent No. 4. Also heard Mr. C. Baruah, learned Central Govt. counsel for the Union of India. 7. It is an admitted position that the petitioners did not apply for the de alership in response to the advertisement-dated 16.7.2005. Taking me through the advertisement and the Brochure for selection of petrol/ diesel retail outlet de alers issued on Ist November, 2004 by the Numaligarh Refinery Ltd (NRL), the lea rned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per clause 2(c) of the Brochure aforesaid the term ’fleet operator’ indicates that such operator m ust have minimum 50 (fifty) trucks and that as each of the petitioners were not the owners of fifty numbers of truck they did not apply for the said dealership. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the respondent No. 4, who als o did not possess fifty trucks, did not come under the category of ’fleet operat ors’ as such his selection as dealership in response to the aforesaid advertisem ent was illegal and as such said selection was liable to be set aside. 8. In reply to the said contention, Mr. B.C. Das, learned senior counsel ap pearing for the respondent No. 4 submitted that the selection was done within th e terms of advertisement and that in the advertisement there was no mention that persons having 50 (fifty) numbers of vehicle under his control would be eligibl e for candidature. It is submitted that the advertisement being issued for Walk- In-Interview was an offer made open to all. Drawing my attention to clause 6 and clause 13(2) of the advertisement, it is contented that the applicant committin g a minimum volume of 30 kilo letre per month was eligible and the applicant was required to bring to the interview copies of R.C. Books of all vehicles owned b y him. Clause (6) and 13(2) which reads as follows: (6) Applicants committing minimum volume of 30 kl per month will only be eligib le. (13(2) The proof of vehicles owned: The applicant should bring to the interview copies of R.C. Books of all vehicles owned by him duly attested by a gazetted o fficer. 9. The learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 4 has drawn the notice of this Court to Annexure-A to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent Nod. 4. Annexure-A is a guideline for selection of dealer and distributor, whic h was issued on 9.3.2005. As per clause (2) of the said guidelines the term ’fle et operators’ have been re-defined indicating persons owning/having under their attachment a group of vehicles with a minimum commitment of 30 kl per month. In the advertisement also it was clearly mentioned that the applicant committing mi nimum volume of 30 kl per month would be eligible. Therefore, all persons/ farms having capability of committing 30 kl per month were eligible to apply for the allotment of dealership. As there was no mention regarding any specific numbers of vehicles in the advertisement, there was no reason to believe that only the owners of 50 (fifty) numbers of vehicles were eligible to apply for the said dea lership. Therefore, the petitioners had no reason to abstain from participating in the said Walk-in-Interview. The petitioners, who did not participate in the s aid interview, they lost their right to challenge the selection itself. The adv ertisement was made on 16th July 2005 and the selection was made on 4.8.2005. If according to the petitioners the advertisement was not as per the guidelines or criteria prescribed for allotment of dealership, they should have challenged th e advertisement immediately therereafter, but instead of challenging the adverti sement at the initial stage, the petitioners allowed to complete the selection a nd they challenged the selection of the respondent No. 4 by filing the writ peti tion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 23rd August, 2006 i.e. af ter about more than one year from the date of advertisement and selection. 10. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4, relying o n the decision of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and Ors. reported in (1976) 1SCC 671 and Adi Pherozshah Gandhi Vs. H.M Seervai, Ad vocate General of Maharashtra, Bombay, reported in 1970 (2) SCC 484, submitted that the petitioners, who did not apply in response to the advertisement dated 1 6.7.2005, and thus abstained from participating in the selection process, have n o locus-standi to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of th e Constitution of India. In his application (Annexure- B), respondent No 4 menti oned that he possessed three numbers of vehicles and in addition to that he had another five vehicles attached to him, thus he had eight vehicles under his cont rol. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the locus-standi of the person aggriev ed must be found from his position in the first proceeding and his grievance mus t arise from that standing taken with the effect of the order on him. The respo ndent No. 4, who applied for the dealership and participated in the Walk-in-Inte rview was selected. 11. In view of the above, the petitioners having failed to challenge the adv ertisement itself at the proper time lost their locus-standi to challenge the se lection of respondent No. 4. In the said case, the Honourable Apex Court observe d that as a general rule, infringement of some legal right or prejudice to some legal interest inhering in the petitioner is necessary to have a locus standi in the matter. 12. By selecting the respondent No. 4 in terms of the said advertisement, no legal right of the petitioners appears to have been infringed. According to the petitioners, the term ’fleet operator’ includes a person or farm possessing 50 (fifty) numbers of trucks, if that was so, the petitioners should have challenge d the advertisement itself because in the advertisement, there was no mention re garding ownership of fifty vehicles. Therefore, the petitioners lost their locus standi to challenge the selection of respondent No. 4. 13. In the facts and circumstances as stated, there is no sufficient ground to hold that any prejudice was caused to the petitioners and that there legal r ights were violated warranting exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction invoking the powers conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. In view of the above, I find no merit in this writ petition. Accordingl y, the writ petition stands dismissed. 15. No costs.