JUDGMENT Ruma Pal, J. 1. The subject matter of dispute in this writ petition is the grant of an Off Licence Liquor shop in favour of the respondent No. 5 at 96-A, Ashutosh Mukherjee Road. Calcutta-700 025 (referred to as the premises). 2. The petitioner claims to be a social service worker and a member of the Institute of Social Studies. He has objected to the grant of liquor licence on the following grounds :- 1. The premises was situated near a hospital and various educational institutions and therefore a liquor shop should not be located there. 2. The grant was illegal in that the grantee had several near relations who had liquor licenses in Calcutta. 3. There were already several foreign liquor off shops and bars in existence in and around the premises so that there was no necessity for issuance of a licence for a new liquor shop in the locality. 4. Repeated objections had been made to the respondent authorities. The respondent authorities did not dispose of the objections. The respondent authorities could not grant a licence for a liquor shop in the locality without disposing of the objections. 5. In 1985 the respondent authorities had sought to open a liquor shop in the premises. Objections had been raised by the petitioner and other local residents which had been allowed by the Government. There was no reason to justify the change in the stand of the Government. 3. Reliance has been placed by the petitioner on the decisions in Sisir Kr. Dey vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. 78 CWN 216 and Hem Chandra Mandal vs. Excise Licensing Board of Asansol & Ors. AIR 1955 NOC (Cal) 4290. 4. On 1st March 1993 the petitioner moved this writ application exparte. The petitioner has challenged the grant of licence to the Respondent No. 5 for the premises. The matter was directed to appear before the regular Bench on 4.3.93. Status quo as on date was directed to be maintained in the meantime. 5. The State of West Bengal has produced records relating to the case and has contended: 1. No objection had been received from the petitioner at all. In any event the licensing authority was willing to consider the objections provided the shop was allowed to be opened for 7 days. 5. The State of West Bengal has produced records relating to the case and has contended: 1. No objection had been received from the petitioner at all. In any event the licensing authority was willing to consider the objections provided the shop was allowed to be opened for 7 days. It is submitted that if the shop was not allowed to be opened before 31.3.93 the licence would lapse and the authority would have to issue fresh advertisements and undertake the entire procedure for grant of licence all over again. 2. The petitioner had been set up by interested parties and was motivated for personal reasons. 3. No prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if the shop were allowed to be opened as there was already liquor shops in the locality. 6. The respondent No. 5 has contended : 1. The Notification u/s 30 of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909 relating to the setting up of a shop in the premises had been published in 1984. The time to file an objection had expired long ago. It was not a question of setting up a new shop in 1992 but of revalidation of an existing licence in respect of the premises. 7. Reference has been made to a letter written by the Assistant Secretary of the Excise Department to the Excise Commissioner West Bengal dated 31.3.92 in which it has been stated that the Governor had accorded sanction to the revalidation of 8 foreign liquor off licenses during the year 1991-92, in terms of the proviso to Rule 59 of the consolidated rules made under s. 85 of the Bengal Excise Act 1909 after observance of usual rules and procedure. One of the 8 shops was at "96, Ashutosh Mukherjee Road, Calcutta or in the vicinity thereof". It is submitted that the petitioner not having objected to the site earlier could not be permitted to raise such objection now. 2. The petitioner had no locus standi. He was set up by interested parties. The objection was that there was no necessity for a liquor shop. The question of necessity was to be determined by the State Government. The mala fides of the petitioner's stand was apparent from the fact that no copy of the objection was sent to the respondent No. 5 although the petitioner was well aware of the details relating to the respondent No.5. The question of necessity was to be determined by the State Government. The mala fides of the petitioner's stand was apparent from the fact that no copy of the objection was sent to the respondent No. 5 although the petitioner was well aware of the details relating to the respondent No.5. A public interest litigation could be initiated in respect of those who were unable to protect their own interest by reason of financial difficulty or illiteracy. This was absent in this case. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chaudhury & Ors., 1992 (4) SCC 305 in this connection. 3. The writ petition was liable to be dismissed in limine if the petitioner's case was that no liquor licence should be granted at all in respect of the premises. Apart from the petitioner the other persons who had been empanelled for grant of liquor licence in the premises and whose interest would be vitally affected had not been made parties. 4. The petitioner had waited uptil the last moment and obtained an ex parte order although the petitioner was all along aware of every stage of the proceedings. 8. At this stage there are two issues which will have to be determined by Court. The first is whether the writ application should be dismissed in limine as contended by the respondent No. 5 and the second is whether the interim order granted ex parte should be vacated. 9. Strictly speaking, there is in fact no interim order. "In the meantime" means "during the intervening time". The time mentioned in the interim order was 4th March 1993. There has been no extension of that time. The question whether the Court should grant the interim order afresh does not arise as I am of the view that the writ application is liable to be dismissed. 10. I uphold the submission to the Respondent No. 5 that the petitioner does not have the locus standi to pray for the reliefs claimed in this petition. 11. On the basis of the reasoning of the Supreme Court in the case of Janata Dal vs. H. S. Chaudhury (supra), 4 pre-conditions have been specified for determining the locus standi of a petitioner in a public interest litigation. 11. On the basis of the reasoning of the Supreme Court in the case of Janata Dal vs. H. S. Chaudhury (supra), 4 pre-conditions have been specified for determining the locus standi of a petitioner in a public interest litigation. The petitioner must be acting bona fide, he must have sufficient interest in the proceeding, he can approach the Court for the poor and needy and finally the complaint must be regarding the violation of the fundamental rights of the persons whose rights are sought to be vindicated or protected. Only a petitioner who fulfils all four pre-conditions can maintain such an objection. 12. In this case the bona fides of the petitioner are suspect. The first letter annexed to the petition would show that there are several foreign liquor of shops and bars already in existence in and around the premises. The petitioner's grievance is that there was no necessity for issuance of a further licence in the premises. The stand taken regarding educational institutions and hospitals being affected by the opening of an off licence liquor shop in the premises is therefore, negatived. It does not appear from the petition that the petitioner had raised any protest in respect of the existing Liquor Shops and Bars. 13. Furthermore, the inhabitants in and around the premises are neither poor nor needy nor unable to ventilate their grievances if they had any before the Court. The setting up of an additional liquor shop in the locality cannot in any view of the matter amount to a violation of any their fundamental rights. The petitioner's protest on the ground of illegality of the grant of licence would indicate that the petitioner is being set up by a person interested in seeing that the respondent No. 5 did not get the licence. The prayers in the writ petition would show that the target of the petitioner's attack is the Respondent No.5. 14. I have also gone through the records produced by the State respondents. No copy of any objection of the petitioner appears from the records. There is, therefore, no explanation why the petitioner moved the Court almost three months after the publication inviting applications for the grant of a licence. The petitioner waited until the grant was made in favour of the respondent No. 5 and then moved ex parte. No copy of any objection of the petitioner appears from the records. There is, therefore, no explanation why the petitioner moved the Court almost three months after the publication inviting applications for the grant of a licence. The petitioner waited until the grant was made in favour of the respondent No. 5 and then moved ex parte. His conduct is not in keeping with a bona fide interest in protecting public interest. 15. There is also substance in the respondent No. 5's submission that the writ petition is not maintainable in the absence of the other panellists whose right would be seriously affected if any decision were taken not to allow any off licence liquor shop in the locality at all. 16. As far as the merits of the case are concerned they are without substance. It appears from the records that the grant of licence in respect of F.L. off Shop at 96, Asutosh Mukherjee Road had been made on 21st March, 1985. It was not because of any objection by the petitioner that the shop was not operated then. The grant of licenc which was made on 21st March, 1985 in respect of one Anup Kumar Saha had been challenged by one Sunil Kumar Saha before the Appellate Authority under the Act. The Appellate Authority set aside the grant. The order of the Appellate Authority was challenged under Article 226 by Anup Saha as well as Sunil Saha in two separate writ petitions. A licence being granted for a fixed period, and no interim order having been passed in either of the writ petitions, the licence had accordingly lapsed. There is, therefore no question of any change of stand by the licensing authority. 17. The petitioner’s complaint that the grant of licence could not have been made without disposing of the petitioner’s objection is misconceived. The objection does not appear to have received by the respondent authorities at all. In any event, the objection related to the necessity for opening a liquor off shop. There are admittedly several liquor shops in the locality. Whether there should be another is a matter of policy which the petitioner is certainly not in a position to question. 18. The petitioner’s stand is also inconsistent. In any event, the objection related to the necessity for opening a liquor off shop. There are admittedly several liquor shops in the locality. Whether there should be another is a matter of policy which the petitioner is certainly not in a position to question. 18. The petitioner’s stand is also inconsistent. His objection as to the legality of grant would mean that the grant could be made to a person who did not have such relations holding licenses for liquor shops. 19. The decisions cited by the petitioner are not appropriate. The case of Sisir Kumar Dey relates to the procedure for establishment of a new site. In the case before me it appears from the records that as far back as 1985 a licence had been granted for an off licence liquor shop at premises No. 96, Asutosh Mukherjee Road. It is claimed that the premises in question is No. 96-C, Assuming that to be so there is no 'site' change as was the case in Hem Chandra Mandals case (supra). 20. In my view, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the writ application alive. On the basis of the averments contained in the petition as well as the records produced by the respondent authorities for the reasons stated the writ application must be and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 21. Stay of the operation of this order, as asked for, is granted for a period of two weeks from date. It is, however, made clear that there is no interim order operating in favour of the petitioner. Let xerox copies of this order be made available to all the parties on their usual undertakings. Writ petition dismissed.