V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE Affiliated Private Junior College Managements Association (for brevity the Association ), is the petitioner. It is stated to be a registered Association. The Association, represented by its General Secretary, has filed this writ petition seeking invalidation of a Notification dated 18-11-2001, issued by the 2nd respondent-Board of Intermediate Education (for brevity the Board ). By the said notification, the Board invited applications from interested educational agencies/junior colleges for establishment of new private junior colleges and starting additional sections in private junior colleges, and for grant of affiliation to such private junior colleges etc. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the Association, the notification issued by the Board is contrary to the provisions of the A. P. Education Act, 1982, especially Section 20 thereof, and also contrary to the scheme for establishment of new private junior colleges and starting additional sections in private junior colleges, approved by Government in G. O. Ms. No. 114, Higher Education (C. E. III-2) Department, dated 9-8-2000. ( 3 ) THE facts leading to the filing of the writ petition may briefly be noticed. A junior college can be established with the permission of the Government granted under the provisions of the A. P. Education Act,1982 (for short the Education Act ), the A. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1971 (for brevity the 1971 Act ) and the Rules framed by the Government under Section 99 of the Education Act, known as "the A. P. Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Institutions of Higher Education) Rules, 1987", issued in G. O. Ms. No. 29, dated 5-2-1987. Under the Rules, the Board is the competent authority to accord permission and recognition to private junior colleges. During the year 1999, Private Junior Colleges Managements Association filed W. P. No. 13927 of 1999 before this Court complaining that the Board is following the Rules more in breach while granting permission to start new private junior colleges or permitting establishment of new sections or permitting shifting of private junior colleges from one place to another, and a declaration was sought that the action of the Board in granting permission for establishment of additional sections in private junior colleges in the State without keeping in mind the Rules, is illegal and arbitrary. This Court by judgment dated 27-2-1999, directed the Government and the Board to come up with a scheme as regards grant of permission to new private junior colleges proposed to be established during the subsequent academic years/additional sections that are to be granted having regard to the number of pass outs in the SSC examinations, and the need for permitting establishment of new private junior colleges or creating additional sections. The High Court also suggested certain amendments to the scheme proposed by the Government. The Government approved the scheme in G. O. Ms. No. 114, dated 9-8-2000, which is in four parts. Part I deals with the guidelines for creation of additional sections or new private colleges. Part II deals with rationalization of Corpus Fund, Part III deals with grant of funds to new junior colleges in tribal and rural areas, and Part IV deals with vocational education at Intermediate level in private junior colleges. ( 4 ) IN this writ petition, we are concerned with establishment of new private junior colleges and creation of additional sections in the existing junior colleges, which is dealt with in Part I of the scheme approved in G. O. Ms. No. 114, which is as follows: (I) For Additional Sections or new Private Colleges: (i) Revenue Mandal is taken as a unit of area. (ii) Mandal-wsie surplus of SSC pass-outs i. e. the need for admissions into Intermediate classes is arrived mandal-wsie by deducting the number of the admissions already made in the existing Junior Colleges i. e. Government Junior Colleges, Aided Junior Colleges, Co-operative Junior Colleges and Private Junior Colleges for the last 3 years in the mandal, from the number of pass-outs of SSC exams fro the last four years in the Mandals, obtained from the Commissioner of Government Examinations, Government of Andhra Pradesh. (iii) Surplus of SSC pass-outs of 220 or more is considered to be viable for a Junior College of two sessions. (iv) Surplus of SSC pass-outs of 110 in a mandal are considered to be viable for one additional section in an existing Private Junior College. (v) Whenever the number of SSC pass-outs is more than 220, a new College can be permitted in mandals without any Junior College and in mandals with only Government Junior College, only after exhausting the sanctioned strength in such Government Junior College. (v) Whenever the number of SSC pass-outs is more than 220, a new College can be permitted in mandals without any Junior College and in mandals with only Government Junior College, only after exhausting the sanctioned strength in such Government Junior College. (vi) If the number of SSC pass-outs is more than 110, one additional section may be permitted in the existing Private Junior College. (vii) During the academic year 2000-2001, additional sections may be granted to the extent of intake of the previous academic year 1999-2000 so as to enable these colleges, who had admitted students for the year 1999-20000 beyond the sanctioned strength, to send the students to exams as regular candidates for the second year in 2000-2001 examinations. This would not enable the said managements to make any fresh admissions beyond the sanctioned strength. (viii) A ceiling of 1000 on the total strength in each year shall be imposed for the admissions from the year 2001-2002 for all the colleges, irrespective of their previous intake. (ix) A college which did not have full strength in the permitted sections in the academic year 1999-2000 would not be allowed any additional sections. (x) In the Municipal Corporation areas, new Junior colleges may be located atleast two Kms, distance from an existing college. With a view to provide balanced spread of educational facilities, applicants for new colleges will be encouraged to go to new areas where there are no junior colleges existing. (xi) If the number of applications received for starting a new Junior College at a particular Mandal/municipal area is more than the number of new colleges for which the mandal Municipal area is eligible, permission for starting new Junior College may be given to the applicant who has provided better infrastructure and other facilities for starting a new Junior College. ( 5 ) THE Board issued Notification inviting applications (i) for establishment of new junior colleges, (ii) for sanction of additional sections/conversion of sections, (iii) for renewal of affiliations, and (iv) for shifting of colleges. The notification also indicated the details of inspection fee and other fee. All the applications for starting new private junior colleges are to be made in a prescribed form, to be supplied by the Board on payment of Rs. 100. 00. The notification also indicated the details of inspection fee and other fee. All the applications for starting new private junior colleges are to be made in a prescribed form, to be supplied by the Board on payment of Rs. 100. 00. The petitioner contends that the Board issued the notification ignoring Section 20 of the Act, and in the absence of any clear policy for assessing the viability of new colleges, inviting applications by the Board to start new colleges is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner narrates a few instances where the alleged arbitrary exercise of power by the Board in sanctioning new colleges led to some colleges admitting students far in excess of the sanctioned strength. The petitioner submits that the Board permitted shifting of colleges contrary to Rule 14 (3) of the Rules. The colleges were shifted because in subsequent years it was found that they were not viable in the places where they were sanctioned. The petitioner-Association contends that without there being any survey as to the educational needs of the locality, the Board cannot be permitted to proceed with the processing of the proposals for starting new private junior colleges. ( 6 ) THIS Court while admitting the writ petition on 19-12-2001, passed interim directions directing the respondents not to proceed with the notification issued by the Board for a period of two weeks, which was later extended until further orders by order dated 12-1-2002. The Board filed an application being W. V. M. P. No. 79 of 2002 praying this Court to vacate the interim order. Though the matter is at the interlocutory stage, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter was heard finally, and is being disposed of by this order. ( 7 ) ON behalf of the respondents, the Joint Secretary of the 2nd respondent-Board filed counter-affidavit stating that no college is permitted by the Board without observing and verifying the Rules in force, and that necessary instructions were issued to Regional Inspection Officers vide proceedings dated 16-10-2000 to curb the violations committed by the private managements/junior colleges. The Board being the affiliating authority has the responsibility to ensure proper standards in all affiliated junior colleges, and therefore, Circular dated 22-3-2001 was issued informing all the Principals of Private Junior Colleges to curb unhealthy and irregular practices on publicity by affiliated junior colleges. The Board being the affiliating authority has the responsibility to ensure proper standards in all affiliated junior colleges, and therefore, Circular dated 22-3-2001 was issued informing all the Principals of Private Junior Colleges to curb unhealthy and irregular practices on publicity by affiliated junior colleges. The Board is adopting measures to promote physical and moral welfare of the students in junior colleges by duly enforcing the conditions for grant of permission incorporated in Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules. As per the existing policy of the Board surplus SSC pass outs of 220 or more, is considered to be viable for a junior college and surplus pass outs of 110 in a Mandal is considered for permitting additional section. The Government formulated a scheme granting incentives for setting up of new junior colleges in collegeless tribal and rural mandals. A survey was conducted and 234 collegeless mandals in the State were identified for implementation of the scheme. On 27-5-2001 applications for establishing new junior colleges were invited for the academic year 2001-02. However, the Screening Committee consisting of Chairman, A. P. State Council for Higher Education, The Commissioner for Intermediate Education, the Commissioner for Collegiate Education and the Regional Joint Director concerned, after scrutinizing the applications accorded permission for opening private junior colleges in 90 collegeless mandals under the incentive scheme and 121 government junior colleges were opened in some collegeless mandals. For the academic year 2002-03, the exercise for granting permission for establishment of junior colleges, creation of new sections etc. , was undertaken in accordance with the scheme approved by the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 114, dated9-8-2000 and also having regard to the pass outs in SSC examination. The policy of the Government has been clearly spelt out in G. O. Ms. No. 114, dated 9-8-2000 and no permission for new college or permission for any other purpose will be considered, ignoring the policy guidelines issued by the Government in the above G. O. The schedule to the notification is intended to streamline the requests for transfer, change of name or shifting of the college. The petitioner-Association has no locus standi to file the writ petition, which is filed with oblique motive and not in public interest, and as such cannot be treated as PIL. ( 8 ) SRI. The petitioner-Association has no locus standi to file the writ petition, which is filed with oblique motive and not in public interest, and as such cannot be treated as PIL. ( 8 ) SRI. S. R. Ashok, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that under Section 20 of the Act, before granting permission, the competent authority has to conduct a survey as to the educational needs of the locality , and in the absence of any such survey being conducted in each locality, inviting applications by the Board for grant of permission to establish new private junior colleges, is not justified as it would violate the mandatory provisions of Section 20 of the Act. He submits that by reason of such arbitrary exercise of power, in the past, large number of private junior colleges became unavailable, resulting in large scale requests for shifting of colleges to new places. Such shifting of colleges to new places has not only resulted in unhealthy, unfair and cutthroat competition among the colleges, but has also resulted in an adverse impact on the upbringing of the younger generation. He also submits that the arbitrary exercise of power by the Board in granting permission to new colleges not only renders the new colleges unavailable but also results in under-admission of students/admission of students below the sanctioned strength. Further, It also leads to unethical practices among the colleges/managements in implementing the good conditions of service for the teaching faculty. The learned counsel further submits that the prevailing dearth of teaching faculty is only due to proliferation of unviable private junior colleges. He would contend that as there is patent violation of Section 20 of the Act, the question of locus standi pales into insignificance. The Association having more than 700 colleges as its members, is vitally interested in the physical, economic and moral health of the private junior colleges, and therefore, the Association can maintain the writ petition. The learned counsel would submit that the issue raised in this writ petition is justiciable in the background of the statutory regime governing the subject of grant of permission to start new colleges. The learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the apex Court in M. S. Jayaraj v. Commr. of Excise. ( 9 ) SRI. The learned counsel would submit that the issue raised in this writ petition is justiciable in the background of the statutory regime governing the subject of grant of permission to start new colleges. The learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the apex Court in M. S. Jayaraj v. Commr. of Excise. ( 9 ) SRI. S. Satyanarayana Prasad, the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education submits that the petitioner-Association has no locus standi to question the notification issued by the Board. He submits that all the members of the Association are running colleges, and therefore, they are averse to the new colleges proposed to be established. In support of his contention that when the right of the existing colleges is not infringed, they have no locus standi to question the grant of permission to another person, even if it is contrary to the provisions of the statute or the Rules, he placed reliance upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Coastal Paper Ltd. v. Government of India. ( 10 ) THE learned Government Pleader further submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is with regard to a policy of the government in the field of education and the scope of judicial review by this Court is very limited. The question of granting permission for establishment of new colleges, the question of granting permission for shifting, and granting of permission for creating new sections, are all matters for the education authorities the decide, and in the absence of any arbitrariness in the action of the respondents or violation of legal provisions, the issue raised in this writ petition by the Association, is not justiciable. On merits of the case, the learned Government Pleader, reiterated the averments made in the counter-affidavit. ( 11 ) IN the background of the facts, two questions that fall for consideration of this Court are - (1) Whether the petitioner-Association has locus standi, and (2) Whether the issue is justiciable in this petition for judicial review. Question of justifiability: In a written Constitution, the concept of absolute power is anathema. Every decision in exercise of any power is subject to judicial review either under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, subject of course to the very inherent limitations in the Doctrine of Judicial Review. Question of justifiability: In a written Constitution, the concept of absolute power is anathema. Every decision in exercise of any power is subject to judicial review either under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, subject of course to the very inherent limitations in the Doctrine of Judicial Review. Though all decisions are reviewable by a Constitutional Court, certain decisions by their very nature, like the decisions in exercise of sovereign and prerogative powers, and also policy decisions taken by the Government do not have adjudicative disposition, and for that reason, are beyond the scope of judicial review. Amenability of a decision to judicial review is altogether different from being beyond the scope of judicial review. Certain decisions are not justiciable in a Court of judicial review, as for example, the making of treaties, the defence of a country, the exercise of certain constitutional functions like appointment of Ministers are not susceptible to judicial review. The Court is not equipped to deal with all issues brought before it for adjudication because the judicial review is unsuitable and judges are ill-equipped to decide. In other words, the nature and subject-matter of the issue renders many governmental functions non-justiciable because there are no judicially manageable standards for scrutinizing such matters and resolving such controversies. This aspect of the matter was dealt with by a nine-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in S. R. Bommai v. Union of India. It is not necessary to extract the ratio and relevant passages. It is suffice to notice that so far as Indian Public Law is concerned, if there are no judicially manageable standards for scrutinizing the material, which is the basis for certain decision, and the Court is not equipped with the situation presented before it, such issues are non-justiciable. Similarly, the decisions, which are taken in the arena of subjective satisfaction, dependent upon some imponderables or inferences, are also not justiciable. ( 12 ) IN the field of education, as held by the Supreme Court in large number of decisions, ordinarily academic matters are outside the purview of judicial review and are not justiciable. A reference may be made to University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, J. P. Kulashreshta v. Allahabad University, Maharashtra S. B. O. S. and H. S. Education v. Paritosh and State of Uttar Pradesh v. D. K. Singh. A reference may be made to University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, J. P. Kulashreshta v. Allahabad University, Maharashtra S. B. O. S. and H. S. Education v. Paritosh and State of Uttar Pradesh v. D. K. Singh. In all these cases, it was laid down that the Court will not readily interfere in matters relating to decisions of academic authorities unless the decision taken is ex-facie arbitrary, biased or without jurisdiction. Further, an educational policy decision ordinarily does not come within the purview of judicial review, unless such policy decision violates a constitutional or legal provision or is tainted with mala fides. ( 13 ) THE Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G. O. Ms. No. 114, dated 9-8-2001, keeping in view the orders of this Court in W. P. No. 13927 of 1999. A scheme was approved by the Government in the said G. O. In para I of the said G. O. sufficient guidelines to be followed by the Board while processing the applications for establishment of new colleges or sanction of new sections or permitting shifting of the colleges, are given. Indeed, the Board which is established under Section 3 of the Act is conferred with various powers under Section 9. It is also conferred with the power to make Regulations under Section 12 with the approval of the Government. The powers of the Board include the power to make Regulations to provide for courses of study, medium of instruction, formulate scheme for conduct of Intermediate Education, and to admit students to such examinations and to take all steps ancillary thereto. As per the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, it is only the Board of Intermediate Education which with the approval of the Government has to formulate a scheme for carrying out the purposes of the Act. When the Legislature has assigned the duty of regulating Intermediate Education in the State, the State Government has laid down policy guidelines in G. O. Ms. No. 114, dated 9-8-2001, and having regard to the orders of this Court nobody can be heard to say that the Board is not entitled to invite applications for grant of new colleges. ( 14 ) THERE are sufficient guidelines in the G. O. subject to which the Board has to process the applications for grant of new colleges treating a revenue Mandal as a unit of an area. ( 14 ) THERE are sufficient guidelines in the G. O. subject to which the Board has to process the applications for grant of new colleges treating a revenue Mandal as a unit of an area. The guidelines, which have been extracted (supra), would show that the Government have taken sufficient safeguards to avoid unhealthy competition among various private junior colleges and also to ensure certain normative standards for maintaining manageable teacher-student ratio. The guidelines are rational and are in tune with the Rules. It is also necessary to mention that all the private junior colleges are governed by the Act and the Rules made in G. O. Ms. No. 29, dated 5-2-1987. All the colleges have to pay salary to the teaching and non-teaching staff as prescribed by the Government. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that proliferation of private junior colleges not only renders the colleges unviable, but also results in depletion of teaching faculty, cannot be countenanced. The Government is the best authority to decide all these questions. It is not for the Court to judicially review by encroaching into these areas. In the counter-affidavit, it is clearly stated that all the applications will be processed by the Board only in accordance with the scheme approved in G. O. Ms. No. 114, dated 9-8-2001, which as already noticed, contains sufficient guidelines for the Board to be followed. ( 15 ) THE members of the petitioner-Association are all running private junior colleges. They contend that there is no locality without a junior college, and the action of the Board in sanctioning permission for starting new private colleges, without proper identification of the localities where the new private colleges are required, is in violation of Section 20 of the Act. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 20 of the Act read:sec. 20. Permission for establishment of educational institutions: - (1) The competent authority shall, from time to time, conduct a survey as to identify the educational needs of the locality under its jurisdiction, and notify in the prescribed manner through the local news papers calling for applications from the educational agencies desirous of establishing educational institutions. 20. Permission for establishment of educational institutions: - (1) The competent authority shall, from time to time, conduct a survey as to identify the educational needs of the locality under its jurisdiction, and notify in the prescribed manner through the local news papers calling for applications from the educational agencies desirous of establishing educational institutions. (2) In pursuance of the notification under sub-section (1), any educational agency including local authority or registered body of persons intending to (a) establish an institution imparting education: or (b) open higher classes in an institution imparting primary education; or (c) upgrade any such institution into a High School; (d) open new courses (certificate, diploma, degree, post-graduate degree courses, etc.) may make an application, within such period, in such manner and to such authority as may be notified for the grant of permission therefor. ( 16 ) THE learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the need of educational institutions should be surveyed with reference to the locality and not with reference to the whole of the State. This submission is devoid of any merit. The Government as a matter of policy, has decided that for starting new private colleges, revenue Mandal is taken as a unit of an area. As per the scheme, the need for new colleges is decided by arriving at surplus of SSC pass outs Mandal-wise and by deducting number of seats already available in the existing junior colleges. If the surplus of SSC pass outs is 220 or more the only a new college will be considered as viable, and if the surplus of SSC pass outs is 110 in a Mandal, the existing college is entitled to be sanctioned an additional section. The new college or new sections as the case may be, is permitted only after exhausting the sanctioned strength in the Government Junior College or existing private junior college. A mention is being made to these aspects only to show that the writ petition is filed on a misapprehension. By inviting applications, the Board has not sanctioned any college. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education, the grant of new college or new sections depending on so many imponderables. Needless to mention again that when a decision depends on imponderables, then such case comes within the category of unmanageable standards. By inviting applications, the Board has not sanctioned any college. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education, the grant of new college or new sections depending on so many imponderables. Needless to mention again that when a decision depends on imponderables, then such case comes within the category of unmanageable standards. ( 17 ) IN J. P. Kulshreshta (supra), the Supreme Court held:rulings of this Court were cited before us to hammer home the point that the Court should not substitute its judgment for that of academicians when the dispute relates to educational affairs. While there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence that Courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies. But University organs, for that matter any authority in our system, is bound by the rule of law and cannot be a law unto itself. If the Chancellor or any other authority less in level decides an academic matter or an educational question, the Court keeps its hands off, but where a provision of law has to be read and understood, it is not fair to keep the Court out. . . The later decisions cited before us proudly conform to the rule of caution sounded in Govinda Rao s case. But to respect an authority is not to worship it unquestioningly since the bhakti cult is inept in the critical field of law. In short, while dealing with legal affairs which have an impact on academic bodies, the views of educational experts are entitled to great consideration but not to exclusive wisdom. ( 18 ) FURTHER, in my considered opinion, "the need of the locality", cannot always be with reference to a particular Mandal, as contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. The fact that G. O. Ms. No. 114, dated 9-8-2001 was issued keeping in view the orders of this Court in earlier writ petition, cannot be lost sight of. Wherever there is a college in a Mandal, as a thumb rule, it cannot be said that another college is not viable. All these are matters for the Government and the Board having regard to so many "imponderables and inferences", which are non-justiciable issues before this Court. Question of locus standi:the writ petition is not filed by way of PIL. Wherever there is a college in a Mandal, as a thumb rule, it cannot be said that another college is not viable. All these are matters for the Government and the Board having regard to so many "imponderables and inferences", which are non-justiciable issues before this Court. Question of locus standi:the writ petition is not filed by way of PIL. The petitioner is interested in the well-being and viability of the junior colleges started by its members. Though an attempt is made to bring the writ petition within the scope of PIL, to commend a liberal view of locus standi, having regard to the finding on question No. 1, strict standards of locus standi should be applied to this case. In Coastal Papers Limited v. Govt. of India, a Division Bench of this Court held:. . . The Supreme Court has held in several licencing cases such as Nagar Rice and Flour Mills v. N. Teekappa Gowda and Bros and Mithlesh Garg v. Union of India, that where the right of an existing licencee is not infringed, it has no locus standi to question the grant of licence to another person even if it was contrary to the provisions of any statute or Rules. . . If the appellant should feel that it inadequate, as has been asserted in several representations, then it is a matter for review by the Government. If it is a question of meeting the risk by the subscribers to the capital, clearly it is a point which has to be advertised in the prospectus of the company as one of the external risk factors. If the company feels that this risk factor cannot be managed without government s support, all that we can say is that the appellant has to give way to another applicant who could manage that risk. ( 19 ) THE submission that arbitrary grant of permissions would result in unviable junior colleges and also low standards in teaching faculty, is without any basis. In any event, such an averment cannot bring the case into those categories of cases where the rule of locus standi can be relaxed. ( 19 ) THE submission that arbitrary grant of permissions would result in unviable junior colleges and also low standards in teaching faculty, is without any basis. In any event, such an averment cannot bring the case into those categories of cases where the rule of locus standi can be relaxed. It is apposite to refer to the following observations from a decision of a seven-judge Bench of the apex Court in S. P. Gupta v. Union of India:before we part with this general discussion in regard to locus standi, there is one point we would like to emphasize and it is, that cases may arise where there is undoubtedly public injury by the act or omission of the State or a public authority but such act or omission also causes a specific legal injury to an individual or to a specific class or group of individuals. In such cases, a member of the public having sufficient interest can certainly maintain an action challenging the legality of such act or omission, but if the person or specific class or group of persons who are primarily injured as a result of such act or omission do not wish to claim any relief and accept such act or omission willingly and without protest, the member of the public who complains of a secondary public injury cannot maintain the action, for the effect of entertaining the action at the instance of such member of the public would be to foist a relief on the person or specific class or group of persons primarily injured which they do not want. (Emphasis supplied) ( 20 ) THE petitioner has no locus standi, but this court has examined the issues having regard to the fact that the Government approved the Board s scheme for establishing of junior colleges and establishment of new sections having regard to the directions issued by this Court in W. P. No. 13927 of 1999. In the absence of any illegality or irrationality, the scheme suffers from no infirmity. In any event, the person primarily injured is not before the Court, and the Association cannot be said to be "person aggrieved". In M. S. Jayaraj v. Commissioner of Excise, an order of Commissioner permitting the shifting of wine shops, was under challenge. There was no such power vested in the Commissioner. In any event, the person primarily injured is not before the Court, and the Association cannot be said to be "person aggrieved". In M. S. Jayaraj v. Commissioner of Excise, an order of Commissioner permitting the shifting of wine shops, was under challenge. There was no such power vested in the Commissioner. The apex Court after referring to Nagar Rice and Flour Mills (supra), J. M. Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Thammanna v. K. Veera Reddy, Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, observed that the Court changed from earlier strict interpretation of locus standi and adopted much wider canvass in later years, and held:in the light of the expanded concept of the locus standi and also in view of the finding of the Division Bench of the High Court that the order of the Excise Commissioner was passed in violation of law, we do not wish to nip the motion out solely on the ground of locus standi. If the Excise Commissioner has no authority to permit a liquor shop owner to move out of the range (for which auction was held) and have his business in another range it would be improper to allow such an order to remain alive and operative on the sole ground that the person who filed the writ petition has strictly no locus standi. So we proceed to consider the contentions on merits. ( 21 ) I have examined the core issues having regard to decision of the apex Court in Jayaraj s case (supra)In the result, the writ petition fails, and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.