The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for strict compliance with the policies and norms prescribed by the Union of India and State of Rajasthan in the allotment of retail outlets.

K.S. Rathore, J.-The petitioner who is a social worker has preferred this writ petition challenging the action of the respondents that interest of public at large is involved. This writ present petition was earlier registered as D.B. Civil Writ Petition as a public interest litigation and placed before the Division Bench and the Division Bench vide order dated 04.03.2005 having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner observed that prima facie no public interest element is involved in the matter to entertain the petition and further observed that the petitioner in person is suffering from the action of the respondent, therefore, the matter was ordered to be listed before the Single Bench.

2. Since, the matter is referred by the Division Bench, observing that the petitioner is personally aggrieved by the action of the respondents and policy framed by the State/National Highways Authority and Union of India has not properly been followed, as also the policy and guidelines for allotment of retail outlet are generally flouted, therefore, this Court has no option other than to hear the matter on merit.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 3, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited invited applications for allotment of retail outlet/dealership in Jhotwara, Jaipur, alongwith other 87 sites vide advertisement dated 10.02.2005, and the applications were invited upto 14.03.2005.

4. The present petition is concerned with regard to allotment of retail outlet/dealership in Jhotwara and the retail outlet/dealership was already allotted in favour of the respondent No. 6 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal vide letter of intent dated 25.09.2001, wherein it was stipulated that the requisite land is to be provided within a period of two months failing which the letter of intent will be withdrawn.

5. Respondent No. 6 applied to the Municipal Corporation for allotment of the land near Bani Park Police Station, Jaipur and the Municipal Corporation allotted 6000 sq. mtrs. of land at the commercial reserved price on depositing the lease money near Bani Park Police Station.

6. Main grievance of the petitioner is that the petrol pump which is required to be set up in Jhotwara and now proposed at Bani Park which is contrary to the notification and Bani Park cannot be considered as a part of Jhotwara and the respondent cannot change the site and another grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent while allotting petrol pumps are not following the norms and conditions prescribed for the purpose and further tried to make out the case that the respondent No. 6 did not fulfill the conditions and the requirement of the allotment as the respondent changed the site which they could not.

7. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the Indian Oil Company, Municipal Corporation and State have raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability of this petition and have submitted that the present petition was initially filed before the Division Bench in the form of public interest litigation but was not entertained by the Division Bench on the count that no public interest is involved in the matter and on the request made on behalf of the petitioner the present petition is treated as S.B. Civil Writ Petition in the form of personal interest litigation but the petitioner has miserably failed to show his locus standi in the matter so much as he is seeking relief for quashing and setting aside the letter of intent Annexure-2 issued in favour of the respondent No. 6 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal.

8. It is also contended on behalf of the respondents that since the petitioner has not applied and participated in the selection process in respect of location of Jhotwara, therefore, he is not concerned or aggrieved with the selection of respondent No. 6 and he cannot claim relief for quashing and setting aside the selection of the respondent No. 6.

9. Learned Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the petitioner is not able to ma