JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J. (Oral) - We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. 2. In this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for quashing the allotment of the retail out-let of petrol pump, by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Corporation), in favour of respondent No. 3. According to the petitioner an advertisement was issued in the English Daily "Tribune", dated 22.08.2000 with regard to dealership of retail out-let of petrol pump for Lohar Majra District Fatehgarh Sahib for open category. There are two Lohar Majras in District Fatehgarh Sahib - One is "Lohar Majra Khurd and the other is "Lohar Majra Kalan. The petitioner claims that before applying and in order to verifying the facts, he went to the office of the Corporation and made enquiries. There he was shown the survey map which showed the said out-let to be allotted at Lohar Majra Kalan near Govind Mandi, though in the advertisement it was described only as Lohar Majra. The petitioner applied for the allotment of the said out-let. The interview was held on 1.2.2001. The petitioner was interviewed by the Dealers Selection Board. The interviews were held on 23.02.2001. The result was declared on the same day and the claim of the petitioner was rejected. The out-let was allotted to respondent No. 3. The further allegation of the petitioner is that respondent No. 3 in connivance with respondent No. 2 has got shifted the retail out-let of petrol pump from Village Lohar Majra Kalan to Lohar Majra Khurd, contrary to the survey report and with ulterior motive to cause illegal benefit to the said respondent. 3. Upon notice, separate replies had been filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3. The facts are hardly in dispute. However, it is categorically stated that the competent authority i.e. Indian Oil Corporation allocates the location for distribution of out-lets. According to this respondent the site at Lohar Majra Kalan was found to be non-feasible much prior to the date of advertisement. The survey report dated 18.11.1995 gave the following observations :- "As the location is in interior rural market having almost negligible transport sales. The potential of the area is quite low. Moreover, another RO at Bahadurgarh is proposed which is around 8 Kms from Lohar Majra". 4. The survey report dated 18.11.1995 gave the following observations :- "As the location is in interior rural market having almost negligible transport sales. The potential of the area is quite low. Moreover, another RO at Bahadurgarh is proposed which is around 8 Kms from Lohar Majra". 4. In view of the above it is stated that the company has always intended to open its out-let at Lohar Majra Khurd as that was the only workable proposition. The lease agreement was signed and got registered on 18.06.2001 and requisite amount has already been deposited with the different departments. The allegation of collusion has been specifically disputed. 5. On the same line is the written statement of respondent No. 3. 6. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation also produced the original records. It is clear that amongst others, the application of the petitioner was also considered by the Dealer Selection Board and he was interviewed as well. However, respondent No. 3 was preferred for selection in comparison to the petitioner. This selection process took place on 23.02.2001. Admittedly, the petitioner was well aware of his rejection and in fact he admits in the petition but still he did not challenge the rejection of his application at that relevant time. If the facts pleaded are true, obviously, the cause of action, if any, accrued in favour of the petitioner in February, 2001 and we see no reason why the petitioner should have waited for all this time and came to the court after the registration of the lease deed in favour of respondent No. 3. It is well settled principle of law that where the applicant participates in a process of selection or appointment even in regard to distribution of State largesse without demur or protest and does not even challenge it for a considerable time, is estopped from challenging the process and selection at a subsequent time. Reference in this regard can be made to Mohan Lal Aggarwal and others v. Bhubaneswqari Prasad Mishra and others, JT 2001(9) SC 21. 7. Furthermore, the petitioner hardly has any case to approach the Court. An Expert body found the petrol pump at Lohar Majra Kalan is not workable proposition even much before the advertisement in question was issued. Reference in this regard can be made to Mohan Lal Aggarwal and others v. Bhubaneswqari Prasad Mishra and others, JT 2001(9) SC 21. 7. Furthermore, the petitioner hardly has any case to approach the Court. An Expert body found the petrol pump at Lohar Majra Kalan is not workable proposition even much before the advertisement in question was issued. Thereafter, interviews were held and again physical survey was conducted and the location as per survey map given by the Indian Oil Corporation, the site in question was leased out to respondent No. 3 as companys out-let. The record produced before us fully supports that allotment of the site in question to respondent No. 3 is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. The conduct of the petitioner in the present case is as such which in any case would dis-entitle him from claiming the relief and equity under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no explanation on record as to why the petitioner has approached the Court after such inordinate delay in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the meanwhile definite rights to the third party have accrued. A lease deed has been executed and registered and all dues payable in accordance with instructions have been paid by the said private respondent to the Corporation. Said respondent has further spent considerable amount on the construction of the petrol pump. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the petitioner had a legitimate grievance, then he would be deemed to have waived the same by his conduct or otherwise. 8. For the reasons afore-stated, we dismiss this petition, however, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.