Temporary grant of a retail outlet does not confer any right, and failure to challenge the selection process at the time of selection estops a later challenge.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari calling for the entire record in respect of allotment of retail outlet situated at Waheed Nagar, district Sant Ravidas Nagar and for quashing the entire selection process.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus directing the respondent not to interfere in the running of the retail outlet situated at Waheed Nagar, district Sant Ravidas Nagar by the petitioner. The petitioner further prayed that the respondents be directed not to issue any letter of intent in favour of respondent No. 4 or any of the other empanelled candidates.

( 3 ) IT is alleged by the petitioner that the Government, of India had taken a policy decision by which it allowed parallel marketing In petroleum and its products and the market was opened up for private entrepreneurs, and thus the monopoly which was being exercised by the four oil companies, namely. Indian Oil Corporation, Bharat Petroleum, I. B. P. and Hindustan Petroleum, was ended. After opening up of the petroleum market in the country, there was stiff competition with the aforesaid four Government owned oil companies. It is alleged in para 4 of the writ petition that with a view to steal a march over the private entrepreneurs, the aforesaid four government owned oil companies embarked upon a dubious but novel method of capturing the best commercial sites for installation of the retail outlets. In its exercise, the officials of the indian Oil Corporation were scouting for an appropriate land for setting up a retail outlet at the main crossing at Waheed Nagar in district Sant Ravidas Nagar on the main G. T. Road running between Allahabad to Varanasi. The most suitable commercial sites at the aforesaid crossing belonged to the father-in-law of the petitioner with his brothers. The officials of the Corporation approached the father-in-law of the petitioner, namely. Prakash Nath Misra and tried to lure him into selling a portion of his land situated at Waheed Nagar crossing to the Corporation and in the alternative, to lease it out for a period of 30 years. The father-in-law of the petitioner refused to do so since the price offered was miserably low and also the monthly lease rent was only about rs. 8,000. The petitioner, a gullible villager could barely make his two ends meet and had to support a large family including three daughters. The petitioner cannot read or understand the english language. It is alleged that the officials of the Corporation promised to lease out the retail outlet in exchange for the aforesaid land and induced the petitioner to some how talk to his father-in-law into leasing out an area of 1401. 50 square meters of the land to the Corporation. The father-in-law of the petitioner knew the plight of the petitioner very well and thus to enable the petitioner to make a decent living, agreed to lease out the aforesaid portion of the land to the corporation even though the terms were highly unfair and arbitrary. A lease deed was executed on 25. 8. 2000, by Prakash Nath and his three brothers in favour of the Corporation on the promise and inducement that the retail outlet to be set up at the site would be leased out to the petitioner. The lease deed was drawn in the English language and executed on the aforesaid date, i. e. , 25. 8. 2000 and a copy of the same was promised to be supplied to the petitioner but in vain. The petitioner invested his lifes savings in development of the leased plot and worked extremely hard for obtaining necessary permission of the concerned authorities and the retail outlet came up on the aforesaid site. The officials of the Corporation granted a work order on 29. 12. 2000, to the petitioner for a period of one year only. A true copy of work order dated 29. 12. 2000 is annexure-1. The petitioner was made to sign several documents which were in English. However, the copies of the same were never supplied to him. In para 19 of the petition, it is alleged that to run