1. Heard Mr. T. Son, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General, State of Arunachal Pradesh. Having regard to the facts involved in this appeal, this appeal is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. Espousing the cause of an unsuccessful Bidder, i.e., M/s. Lokam Brothers, the appellant herein along with two others had challenged the acceptance of bid in favour of the private respondent in respect of the work, namely, Construction of Road from "Sangram to Phassang via Additional Deputy Commissioner Hq. Nyapin under SPA Scheme" The appellant had represented M/s. Lokam Brothers on the strength of the undated authorization letter, which is extracted hereunder :

"AUTHORISATION LETTER

I SRI LOKAM NAI, Proprietor of M/s. LOKAM BROTHER'S & Circle Officer. NYOKUM LAPANG, P.O. & P.S. ITANAGAR, Distt. PAPUM PARE, Arunachal Pradesh do hereby authorise Smt. Kipa Yarak of Sang go village, P.O. Nyapin, P.S. Nyapin, Phassang Circle, District - Kurung Kumey(AP) to receive and submit Tender Documents against the name of Work-C/O. Construction of road from Sangram to Phassang Via Additional Deputy Commissioner HQ Nyapin Under SPA and also authorized to sign in any Tender Documents related to above mentioned work.

The Specimen Signature is attested below:

1. Smt. Kipa Yagak:

(LOKAMNAI)

Proprietor

M/s. Lokam Brother's & Co.

Nyokum Lapang, Itanagar

Arunachal Pradesh."

3. By the said un-dated authorization letter, the appellant was only authorized to collect/receive and submit tender documents on behalf of M/s. lokam Brothers. In the course of hearing before the learned Single Judge, Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned A.A.G., Arunachal Pradesh seriously questioned the locus standi of the appellant, submitting that the appellant is not an aggrieved person and no Power of Attorney having been issued by M/s. Lokam Brothers in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner, as such the writ petition was not maintainable on account of lack of locus standi. According to Mr. Nabam, learned A.A.G., Arunachal Pradesh, the appellant had no authority to institute a legal proceeding on behalf of M/s. Lokam Brothers. The said objection raised by Mr. Nabam, learned A.A.G., Arunachal Pradesh was duly considered by the learned Single Jude on the materials available on record and by a detailed judgement touching upon the basic facts and on the point of locus, dismissed the writ petition vide judgement and order dated 715.2015.

4. Challenge to the said order dated 7.5.2015 made in this writ appeal is primarily on the ground that the counsel for the petitioner had sought for withdrawal of the writ petition from file, which was not acceded to by the learned Single Judge. Another ground taken is that although the appellant/petitioner was holding the Power of Attorney on behalf of M/s. Lokam Brothers for instituting legal proceedings but the same could not be annexed to the writ petition on account of mistake of the Advocate's Clerk and the said fact was not considered by the learned Single Judge by granting liberty to cure the defect.

5. There is no manner of doubt that in the writ petition, no document was enclosed showing the petitioner's authority to act and/or to institute legal proceedings on behalf of M/s. Lokam Brothers. The only document annexed thereto, was the undated authorization letter, as quoted above. Mr. T. Son, learned counsel for the appellant submits that his prayer for withdrawing the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition, not having been acceded to, as such the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot stand the scrutiny of law.

6. The issue before this court is as to whether the appellant is a 'person aggrieved' and had the locus to represent M/s. lokam Brothers short of any power of authorization in the form as required under the law.

7. The concept of locus standi for filing a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India have received co