SRINIVASA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, a dealer in high speed dieset and motor spirit has filed this petition both in public interest and in his individual interest praying for quashing the no objection certificate vide. No exl. CR. 27/98-99 dated 26. 10. 1998, produced as Annexure-A. ( 2 ) THE petitioner sells high speed diesel and motor spirit in hiscapacity as a dealer of Indo Burma Petroleum Co. under the name and style of Palleda Service Station situate at Pravasi Mandira Road, davangere. It is alleged by the petitioner that the first respondent ' originally granted a letter of intent to the second respondent to run the petrol bunk at Kukkawada village and later on under the guise of resitement is shifting partically the vending of motor spirit from the Kukkawada village to the property No. 39, Pampakavi Road, PJ extension, Davangere. The fourth respondent has also, issued a 'no objection certificate for putting up the retail outlet at the said place. The petitioner is aggrieved by the grant of no objection certificate by the fourth respondent and also the alleged resiternent. It is the case of the petitioner that the resitement is opposed to the resitement policy as envisaged by the fifth respondent and, therefore, prays for a declaration that the alleged resitement is illegal and without jurisdiction. ( 3 ) WE have heard the learned counsel on both sides. ( 4 ) THE points that arise for our consideration are:i) Whether the petition filed in the present form, both in private and public interest, is maintainable ? ii) Whether the no objection certificate issued by the Deputy commissioner is susceptible to challenge by the petitioner either in his individual capaoty as a dealer or in his capacity as citizen of the country ? iii) Whether the alleged resitement can be termed as illegal and without jurisdiction, as claimed by the petitioner ? ( 5 ) POINT No. 1:herein the petitioner filed the petition initially in his individual interest and later on amended the petition by adding para 1 (a) wherein it is stated that as a citizen of India he is interested in upholding the Rule of Law and, therefore, has approached this Court in order to thwart the action of the respondents which is contrary to the norms and rules laid down by the respondents themselves. In the present context where the concept of public interest litigation is gaining prominence, persons or association of persons who approach the Court seeking the relief of writ of certiorari, in the context of their iocus-standi can be classified as under: i) person aggrieved; (ii) person or an association of person who espouse the public cause though they may not have any personal interest, (iii) busybody or meddlesome Interloper. A person aggrieved is a person whose legal right has been infringed and it is easy to distinguish such a person, from the other two categories. Next comes the category of persons or associations who may not suffer any infringement of their legal right but who approach the Court in order to ventilate the grievance of those who cannot do so on their own and the third category are persons who interfere in things which do not concern them and who merely indulge in meddling with the judicial process either by force of habit or on account of improper motives. Rarely, if ever, these categories intermix or overlap with each other. From the facts which we have adverted to above it is clear that there is no scope for such interfusing of the categories in the present case. In SUBHASH KUMAR vs STATE OF BIHAR AND others while dealing with a petition filed in public interest had occasion to observe as follows: "but recourse to proceeding under Article 32 of the constitution should be taken by a person genuinely interested in the protection of society on behalf of the community. Public interest litigation cannot be invoked by a person or body of persons to satisfy his or its personal grudge and enmity. If such. petitions under Article 32, are entertained it would amount to abuse of process of the Court, preventing speedy remedy to other genuine petitioners from the apex Court. Personal interest cannot be enforced through the process of the Supreme Court under article 32 of the Constitution in the garb of a public interest litigation. Public Interest litigation contemplates legal proceeding for vindication or enforcement of fundamental rights of a group of persons or community which are not able to enforce their fundamental rights on account of their incapacity, poverty or ignorance of law. Public Interest litigation contemplates legal proceeding for vindication or enforcement of fundamental rights of a group of persons or community which are not able to enforce their fundamental rights on account of their incapacity, poverty or ignorance of law. A person invoking the jurisdiction of the Supreme court under Article 32 must approach the Court for the vindication of the fundamental fights of affected persons and not for the purpose of vindication of his personal grudge or enmity. It is duty for the Supreme Court to discourage such petitions and to ensure that the course of justice is not obstructed or polluted by unscrupulous litigants by invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court for personal matters under the garb of the public interest litigation". Therefore, the petition filed in the present form is totally misconceived and is not maintainable in law. However, it would be open for the petitioner to challenge the resitement if it results in infringement of any of his legal rights. ( 6 ) POINT No. 2:the no objection certificate is issued in favour of the first respondent by the Deputy Commissioner, Davangere District. The petitioner can be said to be aggrieved by the said certificate only in the event of his right being affected in some way or the other No objection certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner is only for the purpose of installation of an outlet pump on the site. The Deputy commissioner is required to examine the request for such installation only from the safety angle. From Annexure-A it is clear that he has obtained reports from various quarters viz. Divisional Fire Officer, davangere, Superintendent of Police Davangere and the Tahsildar davangere. Based on the recommendations of the said authorities the no objection certificate has been issued. Issuance of a no objection certificate ipso facto does not violate any of the rights of the petitioner. The only ground on which such no objection issued by the Deputy Commissioner can be challenged is that it would endanger public safety. It is not the case of the petitioner that the installation of the outlet pump on the site would endanger public safety and, therefore, it has to be quashed. The only ground on which such no objection issued by the Deputy Commissioner can be challenged is that it would endanger public safety. It is not the case of the petitioner that the installation of the outlet pump on the site would endanger public safety and, therefore, it has to be quashed. Therefore, the grant of no objection certificate by the fourth respondent in favour of the first respondent is not susceptible to challenge by the petitioner on any of the grounds urged by him in the petition. ( 7 ) POINT No. 3> As noted above, there is no resitement order passed as such in the present case. The petitioner has merely alleged in the petition that resitement is taking place. The petitioner relies heavily upon the resitement guidelines produced by him at Annexure-B to demonstrate that such resitement is bad In law. The guidelines which is in the form of a letter addressed by the Ministry of Petroleum and natural Gas to the various Petroleum Companies in which the government has substantial interest, begins with the following preface:"i am directed to say that the matter regarding revised criteria for resitement or R. O dealership/lpg distributorships has been under the consideration of Government for some time. This is to convey that in order to empower oil companies to face emerging competition from private sector in the deregulated scenario, it has been decided to delegate the authority for resitement of retail outlet dealerships/lpg distributorships to the oil marketing companies concerned" (emphasis supplied) from the above it is clear that policy guidelines have been formulated only in order to meet emerging competition from private sector in the deregulated scenario and the authority to grant such resitement is delegated to the oil company concerned. The circumstances under which the resitement can be permitted and considered are stated in Annexure-B. Annexure-B does not in specific terms ban the grant of such resitement under circumstances not enumerated in Annexure-B. The list of circumstances as could be found in Annexure-B is neither exhaustive nor exclusive If in the opinion of the company concerned a distributor can be permitted to reset his outlet under a circumstance which is different and distinct from the ones mentioned in Annexure-B, it would still be permissible for the company to grant such resitement. It is purely a matter of opinion for the oil company concerned whether to grant or not to grant the resitement permission. If, in the opinion of the oil company such resitement is necessitated the same can be granted, irrespective of the fact that it is not on account of any of the circumstances to be found at Annexure-B. Guidelines are for the authorities concerned to follow and non-conformity with the guidelines would not serve as a ground under which the action of an authority could be challenged on the ground of arbitrariness. This is so, because they remain mere guidelines which may or may not be conformed to or implemented. If only they are made as tews that a right would accrue to an affected citizen to move this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and not otherwise. This Court cannot in exercise cf its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, interfere in a matter of pure policy. ( 8 ) THAT the volume of business being turned out by the petitionerwould be drastically reduced if such resitement is permitted is not a ground at all to interfere with an order made in pursuance of a policy which is not shown to be either arbitrary or illegal. How a business has to be run is a matter of concern for the companies' concerned and not of an individual who may have a limited interest in conduct of such business. It is to be borne in mind thai the petitioner's position in law is only that of a mere agent for the company concerned and the right, if any, that accrues to him in the light of the agency that he holds would be limited to the terms of the contract of the agency that he holds with the principal company. His right as an agent of the principal would not extend to questioning or challenging any competition that may emerge in the area of his operation from any other company. It would be purely the prerogative of the principal concerned to challenge the introduction of a competitor in an area that was set apart to it. The petitioner would not get any right to hold the brief for his Principal merely because he is an agent. It would be purely the prerogative of the principal concerned to challenge the introduction of a competitor in an area that was set apart to it. The petitioner would not get any right to hold the brief for his Principal merely because he is an agent. The company has a separate legal existence and any infringement of the company's right has to be challenged by the company alone. ( 9 ) THIS Court has had no benefit to look into the resitement order,if any, passed by the concerned respondent. However, as no resitement order is produced by the petitioner as of now, this order need not be construed as having decided the issue of resitement despite the opinion expressed by us in this regard. Whatever we may have stated, in the course of this order by way of discussion of the legal aspects involved in the matter of resitement, would not come in the way of the petitioner in challenging the rositement order, as and when it is passed, if he so chooses. ( 10 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no meritin the petition and it is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is reserved the liberty to challenge the order of resitement, as and when it is made, if it infringes any of his legal tights. --- *** --- .