Judgment : Petitioner seeks writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to issue a re-notification, notifying the location of Retail Outlet of Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) at Poravacherry and to restrain Respondents from proceeding with the appointment of dealer for the Retail Outlet at Poravacherry pursuant to the notification dated 312. 1997 and 23.07.2000. 2. Petitioner states that he is a permanent resident of Nagapattinam District. By an advertisement dated 312. 1997, IOC invited applications from the general public for the dealership of IOC Retail Outlet, LPG Distributors and Kerosene LDO Dealers. That advertisement stated that the place of location of such outlet would be in the area of Nagapattinam and the persons, who satisfied the following conditions were invited to apply. a) an Indian Citizen. b) belongs to the Schedule Caste category. c) on the date of application he should not have been below 21 years and not more than the age of 60 years. d) minimum qualification of education shall be matriculation 10th Standard, or recognized equivalent. e) the applicant must be the resident of Nagapattinam, Thanjavur, Thiruvarur, Cuddalore and Revenue District. f) he should not have the gross family income of more than Rs.2 lakhs in the last financial year (1996-1997) g) he should not have been either a dealer or relatives in any Public Sector Oil Company. 3. A re-notification was issued on 23.07.2000 in several newspapers inviting the applications for the same places. Even in the second notification, the place of location was notified as Nagapattinam and the eligible persons were invited to apply for dealership. 4. The case of Petitioner is that though he satisfied all the requisite qualifications and conditions, he did not choose to apply because the advertisement was only for Nagapattinam and already at Nagapattinam several Retail Outlets are there. After considering the relevant factors such as locality and possible turnover in the business the Petitioner has not opted for the dealership at Nagapattinam. The Petitioner came to know that the Retail Outlet of IOC is run by IOC itself at Poravacherry. The Petitioner also came to know that the Respondents actually located the Retail Outlet at Poravacherry and conducting interview to the applicants, who had applied pursuant to the notification dated 312. 1997 and re-notification dated 23.07.2000. The Petitioner came to know that the Retail Outlet of IOC is run by IOC itself at Poravacherry. The Petitioner also came to know that the Respondents actually located the Retail Outlet at Poravacherry and conducting interview to the applicants, who had applied pursuant to the notification dated 312. 1997 and re-notification dated 23.07.2000. For Corporation owned Company, the site, infrastructure, machineries and equipments are furnished by the Company, with the result the selected retail dealer has to just run the dealership with all the infrastructure provided by the Company. 5. Petitioner claims conducting the interview among the applicants, who had applied for notified area at Nagapattinam is totally unsustainable. According to Petitioner, the location of the Retail Outlet is at Nagapattinam and the same cannot be shifted from Nagapattinam to Poravacherry , which is a different place and therefore, Petitioner seeks direction to the Respondents to issue a re-notification, notifying the location of Retail Outlet of IOC at Poravacherry and consequential injunction. 6. IOC has filed counter affidavit inter alia contending that the retail outlet located at Poravacherry is just 2 kms away from Nagapattinam Municipal Limits, which is well within the Revenue District of Nagapattinam. According to Respondents 1 to 3, as per the policy guidelines issued by the Ministry of Petroleum, interview was conducted and Fourth Respondent was selected as dealer and the Respondents have acted as per the Rules and Regulations of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and there is no question of violation of natural justice. 7. By the order of the Court in W.P.M.P.No. 17223 of 2006, R. Tamilchezhiyan, who was selected as dealer, was impleaded as Fourth Respondent. Fourth Respondent has also filed an elaborate counter raising strong objection as to the locus standi of the Petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr. G. Nagarajan has contended that when certain qualifications are prescribed for the grant of largess, the Authority cannot deviate from the norms so fixed. Placing reliance upon W.P.No. 15537 of 1989, the learned counsel submitted that in the said decision Court has held that having invited application for Akkaraipettai, IOC cannot shift to Nagapattinam. Contending that Poravacherry is not within the Nagapattinam Municipality, learned counsel submitted that liberalisation in Marketing Policy of Petroleum is not a ground to say that the outlet can be located any where. Contending that Poravacherry is not within the Nagapattinam Municipality, learned counsel submitted that liberalisation in Marketing Policy of Petroleum is not a ground to say that the outlet can be located any where. Learned counsel further submitted that the Retail Outlet at Poravacherry being Corporation operated Company, where the infrastructure, machineries, equipments including working capital are furnished by the Company and while so issuing Notification stating that the location of the Retail Outlet is at Nagapattinam is in violation of established Rules and Regulations for appointment of dealer and is a clear arbitrary action. 9. Learned counsel for Respondents 1 to 3/IOC Mr. V. Anantha Natarajan has contended that the Petitioner not having applied for dealership has no locus standi to challenge the selection of Fourth Respondent as dealer. Drawing attention of the Court to the advertisement, learned counsel further submitted that the advertisement makes it clear that the location is Nagapattinam Revenue District and Poravacherry, where the Retail Outlet is located is well within the Revenue District of Nagapattinam and therefore, the allegation in the Petition are baseless. 10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Fourth Respondent Mr.K.Kumar has submitted that with liberalization of marketing of petroleum products and when there is no limit to the quantum of supply, Petitioner can have no valid objection as to the location of the outlet. Submitting that Poravacherry is nothing, but part of Revenue District of Nagapattinam, the learned counsel contended that there is no question of shifting the outlet from Nagapattinam to Poravacherry. 11. Admittedly, Retail Outlet at Poravacherry is on sites owned by the Company/leased to the Company. Third Respondent gave an advertisement on 312. 1997 in the "Hindu" and other leading newspaper inviting applications from general public for the dealership of Indian Oil Retail Outlet location at Nagapattinam; Revenue District Nagapattinam. Subsequently, on 23.07.2000 re-notification was published in Employment News and Dhina Malar newspaper inviting applications for the same place and the eligible persons, who applied for the first notification were invited for dealership. Advertisement Sl.No.29 is for the location Nagapattinam, which stipulates Revenue District Nagapattinam and the Category is Scheduled Caste. The persons eligible to apply are the residents of Nagapattinam, Thanjavur, Tiruvarur and Cuddalore. The stress appears to be upon the "Revenue District Nagapattinam". Advertisement Sl.No.29 is for the location Nagapattinam, which stipulates Revenue District Nagapattinam and the Category is Scheduled Caste. The persons eligible to apply are the residents of Nagapattinam, Thanjavur, Tiruvarur and Cuddalore. The stress appears to be upon the "Revenue District Nagapattinam". The advertisement states that ICO proposes to appoint Retail Outlet dealer for certain categories, viz., Dealer owned Retail Outlets on sites leased to the Company are proposed at these locations. All other Retail Outlets are to be company owned on sites owned by the Company/leased to the Company. 12. Fourth Respondent belongs to Scheduled Caste and a Postgraduate Degree in History from Bharathidasan University and got selected in the year 2003. 13. The contention of the Petitioner is that when notification and re-notification clearly state that the location of the Retail Outlet is at "Nagapattinam", Respondents 1 to 3 cannot shift their location from Nagapattinam to Poravacherry, which is a different area. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance upon an unreported decision in W.P.Nos. 15536 and 15537 of 1989 and the Appeals preferred thereon in W.A.Nos. 407 and 408 of 1990 dated 10.04.1990. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is with regard to the shifting of the outlet. In the above case, originally the outlet was installed at Akkaraipettai in Thanjavur District and subsequently, the outlet was shifted to Nagapattinam, because of the non-viability of the distance. In such facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench held that the prospective dealers like the writ petitioner were prevented from competing for the Retail Outlet at Nagapattinam because of the location given in the advertisement notice. In the case on hand, the location of the outlet is stated as "Nagapattinam"; Revenue District "Nagapattinam". Poravacherry is at a distance of about 1.9 kms from "Nagapattinam" and it is stated to be part of Revenue Office of "Nagapattinam". Poravacherry comes within Nagapattinam Union and to that effect Block Development Officer has also given a Certificate. There is no dispute that Poravacherry falls within the Revenue District of Nagapattinam and there is no question of shifting the outlet. .14. In an identical case in 2001 (4) CTC 162 (V.Gopalakrishnan v. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation), the subject matter of the Writ Petition was Bhuvanagiri within the Revenue District of South Arcot. Advertisement was called for Bhuvanagiri South Arcot District. .14. In an identical case in 2001 (4) CTC 162 (V.Gopalakrishnan v. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation), the subject matter of the Writ Petition was Bhuvanagiri within the Revenue District of South Arcot. Advertisement was called for Bhuvanagiri South Arcot District. But the place of location of outlet has been changed as Keerapalayam Village. In the said case, Petitioner thereon contended that if the place of location has been notified as Keerapalayam Village, Petitioner would have also applied for the dealership and prayed to restrain the Respondents from permitting the selected candidate to locate the outlet at Keerapalayam Village. In the said case, referring to the decision in W.A.Nos. 407 and 408 of 1990 arguments were advanced by the Writ Petitioner. Repelling that contention Justice S. Jagadeesan has held that Third Respondent never installed the outlet at Bhuvanagiri and before ever installation work commenced, the Authorities took a decision that the outlet can be shifted and located at Keerapalayam Village , which is hardly 2 kms away from Bhuvanagiri. The learned Judge further observed that Keerapalayam Village falls within Bhuvanagiri Revenue Jurisdiction as well as Police limits and when that being so, Petitioner could have no valid grievance. 15. The said decision was also upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 2262 of 2001. Speaking for the Bench, Justice P. Sathasivam (as his Lordship then was) has observed that to locate the outlet at Keerapalayam Village, which comes within 2 kms from Bhuvanagiri, cannot be faulted with. 116. In the case on hand, Poravacherry which is hardly at a distance of 1.9 kms forming part of the Revenue District, the Respondent–Corporation neither changed nor shifted the location as alleged by the writ petitioner. The relevant aspect is that Petitioner is not a contesting Applicant. Petitioner claims to be a resident of Nagapattinam. For the location of Retail Outlet at Nagapattinam; Revenue District Nagapattinam, there were two advertisements dated 012. 1997 and 23.07.2000. Petitioner claims to be a resident of Nagapattinam Revenue District and eligible to apply. It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner has not applied for the dealership either for the first advertisement or for the second one. In Gopalakrishnans case, Justice S. Jagadeesan has observed that when the Petitioner has failed to apply for the dealership, he cannot be construed to be an aggrieved person. In an unreported decision in W.A.No.1348 of 1994 dated 011. In Gopalakrishnans case, Justice S. Jagadeesan has observed that when the Petitioner has failed to apply for the dealership, he cannot be construed to be an aggrieved person. In an unreported decision in W.A.No.1348 of 1994 dated 011. 1994, the Division Bench of this Court has observed that it is not possible to appreciate the grievance of the Appellant/Petitioner, who has not filed an application in response to the two advertisements. In the case on hand also the Petitioner, who has not filed an application in response to the two advertisements dated 012. 1997 and 23.07.2000 cannot be said to be an aggrieved person. .17. The contention of the Petitioner has to be viewed in the changed marketing policy of the Government of India. Marketing and pricing of Petroleum products is controlled by the Government of India. In the advertisement column, heading is classified as "Marketing Plan 1994-96". The learned Senior Counsel for Fourth Respondent has submitted that the Government of India by the Resolution of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas dated 08.03.2002, has decided to grant authorisation to market fuels to the new entrants including the private sector. With the changed policy of the Government of India, new entrants/private entrepreneurs have also entered into the field. The policy of Government in the transportation and marketing of petroleum products have considerably been liberalized. The "Marketing Plan" stated in the advertisement "199496" has been changed with the liberalization policy of the Government by the resolution of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas dated 08.03.2002. As per the said resolution, there shall be no limit to the quantum and size of the scheme and number and location of Retail Outlets. In the scheme provided that no encroachments on the existing Retail Outlets will be allowed. When the marketing scheme has got considerable change and when new entrants have been licensed to establish own distribution net works, the action of Respondents 1 to 3 in locating its Retail Outlet at Poravacherry, cannot be faulted with. Since, in the advertisement emphasis is upon the Revenue District, Nagapattinam and Poravacherry being situated within the Revenue District, Petitioner who has not applied for the dealership can have no valid grievance. 118. Upon consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be proper to interfere with the location of the outlet at Poravacherry. Since, in the advertisement emphasis is upon the Revenue District, Nagapattinam and Poravacherry being situated within the Revenue District, Petitioner who has not applied for the dealership can have no valid grievance. 118. Upon consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be proper to interfere with the location of the outlet at Poravacherry. The direction sought for by the Petitioner to issue re-notification for the Retail Outlet at Poravacherry is far-fetched and cannot be sustained. Petitioner has not made out any case calling for interference with the selection of Fourth Respondent as the dealer. 119. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, W.V.M.P.No. 1552 of 2006 and W.P.M.P.No. 40585 of 2003 are closed. There is no order as to costs.