JUDGMENT : M. Katju, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 25.7.2000 passed by the Respondent No. 2. This writ petition has been heard along with Writ Petition No. 9409 of 1987 and Writ Petition No. 49594 of 2000. The main grievance in this writ petition is that the Gorakhpur Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'G.D.A.') has sold the land in question to Respondent No. 5 without any public advertisement regarding auction of the aforesaid plots. It appears that a general advertisement was published on 11/12.7.2000 but it is alleged that it was not for the sale of the plot Nos. 644, 645 and 646. True copy of the advertisement is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. It is alleged that the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 made applications is respect of the aforesaid property prior to the aforesaid advertisement but the same has been settled in favour of Respondent No. 5 illegally. It is alleged that no public advertisement of public auction was held regarding the plot in question. It is alleged that if there would have been a public auction or public advertisement, the Petitioner would have applied for the same and hence the proceedings setting the land in favour of the Respondent No. 5 is illegal. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the G.D.A. and we have perused the same. In paragraph 6 of the same, it has been mentioned that the Petitioner firm came into existence on 30.10.2000. This was more than three months after the settlement in favour of the Respondent No. 5 on 25.7.2000. Since the Petitioner firm was not even in existence on the date of the settlement, we are of the opinion that the Petitioner has no locus standi in the matter. In paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the G.D.A. invited open offer by issuing public notice and accordingly the Secretary of the G.D.A. issued office memorandum dated 11.7.2000 inviting applications between 13.7.2000 and 20.7.2000. True copy of the office memorandum is Annexure-C.A. 1 to the counter-affidavit which was published in Hindi daily newspapers 'Rashtriya Sahara' and 'Swatantra Chetana' on 12.7.2000. This publication was done to ensure that the office memorandum dated 11.7.2000 is given wide publicity. True copy of the office memorandum is Annexure-C.A. 1 to the counter-affidavit which was published in Hindi daily newspapers 'Rashtriya Sahara' and 'Swatantra Chetana' on 12.7.2000. This publication was done to ensure that the office memorandum dated 11.7.2000 is given wide publicity. It was also publicized through the loud speaker and notice was also affixed on the notice board of the G.D.A. as stated in paragraph 12 of the counter-affidavit. One copy was also sent to the Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur to place it on the notice board of the Municipal Corporation. Hence, it cannot be said that there was no publication. 4. In our opinion, since the firm was not even in existence when the advertisement was issued in the newspaper and on the date of the allotment to Respondent No. 5, the Petitioner has no locus standi in the matter and can have no grievance. In paragraph 25 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the G.D.A. has still undisposed property which are lying in the G.D.A. If and when the same are put to public auction, the Petitioner, if eligible, can bid for the same. The G.D.A. has already executed a registered agreement in favour of the Respondent No. 5 and the possession has been handed over to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on the behalf of the Respondent No. 5 on 23.4.2001. The Respondent No. 5 has already deposited a sum of Rs. 14,57,352 with the G.D.A. after completing the formalities and actual possession has been given to it by the G.D.A. on 23.4.2001 by executing registered lease dated 20.4.2001. 5. In our opinion, this is not a fit case for exercise of our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.