CWP 232 of 2007. 21.5.2008 Present: Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, counsel for the petitioners. Ms. Ruma Kahsik, Addl. AG, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Ajay Chandel, counsel for respondent No. 2. Mr. R.L.Sood, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Vikas Rajput, counsel for respondent No. 3. The petitioner Apple Valley Adventures and Constructions Private Limited has challenged the action of the respondent State in not considering its case for allocation of small Hydro Projects in Himachal Pradesh. A number of allegations have been made in the petition including violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in considering the case of respondent No. 3 for such grant and violation of the policy guidelines by the State of Himachal Pradesh. Before the allegations made in the petition are considered, it must be noticed that application dated 24.7.2006 Annexure P-3 was made by Isha Sharma in her individual capacity and not on behalf of any Company etc. The application was forwarded with a bank draft dated 4.8.2006 for Rs.5000/-. Obviously, this application could not have been submitted in July 2006 as is being made out. Annexure P-2 is the Certificate of Incorporation of the petitioner company having been issued on 4th -2- October, 2006. Annexure P-3 cannot be taken to be an application having been made on behalf of the petitioner. The allegations made in paragraph 7 to the effect that petitioner No. 1 was constituted for the purpose of dealing with the government cannot be accepted. There is nothing on record to indicate that respondents 1 and 2 ever asked petitioner No. 2 to incorporate petitioner No. 1. Even otherwise, the petitioners are nothing but business rivals. No petition can be maintained on behalf of petitioner No. 1. From the record we find that respondent No. 3 had submitted its application much prior in point of time than 8.6.2005. From the affidavit filed by the respondents, we find that the Project has made a considerable progress. In the circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the action of the respondents. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dev Darshan Sud), J. May 21, 2008 (PC). (V.K.Ahuja), J.