JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner, an unsuccessful candidate in the matter of appointment of a Retailer for A. R. Shop No. 3529, obtained this Rule against an order dated January 6, 1975, whereby the Respondent No. 5 was preferred for such appointment. 2. The Director of Rationing being the appropriate authority to appoint a retailer, in terms of his delegated authority under paragraph 22 of the West. Bengal Rationing Order, 1964 (hereinafter referred to 'as the said Order), invited applications on February 25, 1975 in the prescribed form the candidates under the statutory rationing scheme in Jadavpore Sub-area (herein-after referred to as the said area), for a shop at Prince Golam Hossain Sha Road between. Bikramgarh High School and Sisumala Vidayalaya. Such applications were further required to be submitted on or by March 22, 1975. The notice also indicated the qualifications for the candidates and the relevant conditions. 3. The petitioner and Respondent No.5 were amongst the other applicants and the Rationing Officer, Jadavpore by a notice informed them that the premises offered by them would be inspected on July 25, 1975 and they were further requested to be present with documentary evidence of possession in respect of the shops as offered including other necessary evidence of Bank Account and Trade License. On such inspection, the shop offered by the petitioner was found to be unsuitable. Thereafter, the petitioner, in continuation of his application, made a representation to the Director of Rationing that he has further secured a good and much more spacious room at No. 66, Prince Golam Hossain Sha Road and requested him to approve the same. On such offer, the petitioner, on August 19, 1975 was intimated about further inspection of the same. Such inspection the petitioner has stated to have been completed by the Rationing Officer and the Chief Inspector concerned and he has further alleged that they were satisfied with the space which was so offered. The petitioner himself has stated in him petition that selection in the matter was required to be made by the Director of Rationing by virtue of his delegated authority in consultation with or on the recommendations of a Selection Board. He has, of course, contended that in his case the said Selection Board or its members never met and scrutinised the respective claims of the applicants. He has, of course, contended that in his case the said Selection Board or its members never met and scrutinised the respective claims of the applicants. The Respondent No.5 was however, by an order dated January 6, 1975 (Annexure H) appointed the retailer for the said area provisionally for a period upto March 30, 1976 and it was made specifically clear that such appointment was purely temporary and was liable to be revoked at any time without giving any notice and without assigning any reason thereof. 4. It was submitted by Mr. Raichowdhury that since the Respondent No.5 did neither possess nor conform to all the conditions as laid down in the notice inviting applications and he was not a resident of the said area, so the grant made in his favour in preference to that of the petitioner was bad, void, irregular and illegal and the Director of Rationing in exercise of his statutory functions under paragraph 3(1) of the said Order was wrong and he acted illegally in selecting him. In fact it was contended that the Director of Rationing in fact has not considered the application of the petitioner before the same was rejected. It was further submitted that the grant of the permit for 3 months in favour of the Respondent No.5 was bad, void and irregular, since the same was contrary to the notice itself and that also manifestly proved lack of bonafides inasmuch as such appointment for a temporary period would strengthen the hands of the authorities to give a permanent appointment after the expiry of the period and that too for the purpose of refusing the just claim of the petitioner after remedying the patent defects. In fact it was contended by Mr. Raichaudhury that since there is no law, for such provisional grant, the entire action of settlement in favour of the Respondent No. 5 became void. 5. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in their return to the Rule stated that the Director of Rationing with the approval of the State Government constituted an Advisory Committee for aiding and helping him in the said selection. It has been stated that the said committee is just a recommending or advisory body and has no statutory power. 5. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in their return to the Rule stated that the Director of Rationing with the approval of the State Government constituted an Advisory Committee for aiding and helping him in the said selection. It has been stated that the said committee is just a recommending or advisory body and has no statutory power. It has also been stated that the applications, with the necessary particulars, were placed before the said advisory body and on receipt of their views and considering them, the Director of Rationing of his own and in consideration of the records made the selection. It has also been stated that as a matter of policy, the approval of the Minister-in-charge was taken before the appointment was made. Mr. Raichowdhury very strongly relied on the last part of the statements in the said affidavit and as mentioned hereinbefore stated that the procedure thus followed in the instant case viz., selecting the Respondent No.5 on the approval of or in consultation with the Minister-in-charge would be enough to establish that there was not only total non-application of mind by the Director concerned but such consultation in fact and effect meant that the Director concerned failed to discharge his statutory functions or the delegated authority duly. Mr. Raichowdhury also submitted that such consultation would mean that before the matter was placed before the State Government either is review or revision, they had formed the opinion since the Minister-in-charge is required to dispose of such proceeding when taken and furthermore the delegation by the State Government in favour of the Director concerned by such consultation became ineffective. It was also submitted that for all practical purposes the Minister-in-charge has passed an order in revision without the necessary application and as such the appointment made in consultation with him at that stage was void. 6. The Respondent No. 5, who filed a separate return to the Rule apart from, disputing the contentions of the petitioner further stated that the petitioner has not come with a clean hand since he has suppressed relevant facts, material for the Rule or obtained the same on misrepresentation of facts. In any event he submitted that the application filed by the petitioner for the grant was full of misstatements and that would be enough for refusing any relief to him in this jurisdiction. In any event he submitted that the application filed by the petitioner for the grant was full of misstatements and that would be enough for refusing any relief to him in this jurisdiction. Further, it was contended by him that none of the existing legal rights of the petitioner was violated and as such also he was not entitled, to the reliefs as claimed: 7. On the question of delegation of power to the Director of Rationing, Mr. Roichowdhury submitted that the power of the State Government to appoint a retailer under paragraph 3(1) of the said Order has been delegated by virtue of the powers and pursuant to a notification in terms of paragraph 22 of the said Order, so the State Government had denuded the power and as such, consultation with or getting the approval of the Minister-in-charge before making the appointment was void and such consultation or getting the approval, made the delegation ineffective. Mr. Mukherjee of course submitted that the Minister-in-charge looked into the file after the decision was taken by the Director concerned and that too for the purpose of finding out whether the prescribed procedure was duly followed as there was a complaint before him. On the pleadings of the parties, it was felt that the records should be looked into for the purpose of finding out the exact date and time when' the records were placed before the Minister-in-charge and whether his approval was obtained prior to the order by the Director concerned. On scrutiny of the relevant records produced for the reasons as mentioned above it revealed that the Director concerned made the appointment on the recommendation of the Advisory Body and thereafter the matter was placed before the Minister-in-charge for the reason and purposes as mentioned hereinbefore. Mr. Raichaudhury, relying on the determinations of the Supreme Court in the case of (1) Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16 , submitted that since the power in this case was not exercised by the appropriate delegate, viz., the Director of Rationing, so the grant as made was bad. The view in the Supreme Court. case was submitted by him were also expressed and followed in the case of (2) Sri Laxmi Jonardan Jew & Anr. The view in the Supreme Court. case was submitted by him were also expressed and followed in the case of (2) Sri Laxmi Jonardan Jew & Anr. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1959 Calcutta 402 and reiterated in the case of (3) Malik Ram v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 1575 and also in the case of (4) Barium Chemical Ltd. v. Company Law Board & Ors, AIR 1967 SC 295 . In the facts of this case and the more so when the Director concerned had taken the decision and thereafter the file was looked into by the Minister-in-charge. I am of the view that the cases as cited by Mr. Raichaudhury would be of no or of little assistance. 8. This takes us to the consideration of the question of prejudice which Mr. Raichaudhury submitted that his client would have suffered, if he had preferred a review or revision before the State Government, all the more so when the Minister-in-charge was consulted earlier or his approval was obtained in the manner as stated hereinbefore and more particularly when the records were looked into by him. This argument, in my view, would not be available to the petitioner in view of the admitted fact that he has not challenged the grant in favour of the Respondent No.5 or the refusal in his case before the State Government. 9. Article 226 does not lay down any rule as to the person by whom an application for relief can be made but indicates the purpose for which writs, directions and orders can be issued and obtained. Under the Article, such orders as aforesaid can be obtained only for the purposes of enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose. Thus the relief under the Article is based as has been found in the case of (5) Anwar Khan Mehboob Co. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., AIR 1966 SC 1637 , on the existence of a right. The powers under the Article can normally be invoked only by a person whose personal rights and interests are adversely affected by the impugned law or order. So the right which is the foundation of an application under Article 226 is a personal and individual right. The powers under the Article can normally be invoked only by a person whose personal rights and interests are adversely affected by the impugned law or order. So the right which is the foundation of an application under Article 226 is a personal and individual right. A person who alleges any infringement as the basis of his application must prove and establish that he himself has been the victim or action has been taken to his prejudice. Thus the rights that can be enforced in a writ petition must ordinarily be as observed in the cases of (6) State of Orissa v. Ramchandra, AIR 1964 SC 685 , (7) State of Punjab v. Suraj Prakash, AIR 1963 SC 507 , (8) Kalyan Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1962 SC 1183 and (9) Jonnala Narasimharao & Co. & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors, AIR 1971 SC 1507 , the rights of the petitioner himself. Since none of the existing rights of the petitioner has been infringed in the instant case for the grant of a license to the Respondent No.5 for a temporary period, even if in violation of the notice or the requirements of the statute, would not entitle the petitioner to maintain the petition on the applications of the principles as referred to hereinbefore. Furthermore, the petitioner not having admittedly preferred any review or revision against the grant of the application of Respondent No.5 or against the refusal of his application, cannot be allowed to argue the prejudice which as stated by him would have suffered in the case of such proceedings being taken by him. The non-filing of any proceeding by the petitioner has debarred, him and would debar him from arguing on such prejudice as has been mentioned hereinbefore and more particularly on the question of consulting the Minister-in-charge or the taking of his approval as alleged. In any event, I hold further that apart from the above, no prejudice has been caused by such reference to the Minister-in-charge because the Minister-in-charge has only looked into the file for the reasons and circumstances as mentioned hereinbefore and that too after the determination by the Director of Rationing. I further find that the allotment and selection in the instant case was in fact made by the Director of Rationing and that also in due discharge of his delegated authority. I further find that the allotment and selection in the instant case was in fact made by the Director of Rationing and that also in due discharge of his delegated authority. Since I have held that the petitioner has no right to challenge the impugned order for shortness of the grant or for the temporary nature of the same, the malafide exercise of power by the Respondents on that score as argued by Mr. Raichaudhury has also no substance and malice in law as was sought to be argued by him on the grounds and basis as mentioned hereinbefore, in my view has also no substance and has not been established. 10. In view of the above, the arguments as advanced by Mr. Raichaudhury fail and the application is dismissed. The Rule is thus discharged. There will be no order for costs. 11. I may record further that in view of the order as proposed by me I have not considered the submissions on behalf of the Respondent No.5 to the effect that the petitioner had no right to maintain the petition as he himself had not had the necessary qualifications for the grant and also on the question of suppression of material facts by him at the time of obtaining the Rule.