JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner No. 2 is owner of the plot of land bearing Khata No. 214 Plot No. 299 which is situated at Maripur (Bathua Bazar), P.S. Phulwari in the district of Gopalganj. In terms of the advertisement for suitable piece of land made by the respondent I.B.P. Company, petitioner no.2 agreed to offer the said land for setting up of a retail dealership, on the basis of a lease agreement entered between the parties, effective 22.11.2002 and valid for a period of fifteen years. The rental for the land agreed upon was Rs. 5,000/-. There was even a clause for renewal of the lease after enhancing the rental at the rate of 10% on completion of every five years. 3. After the lease agreement was finalized the respondent Company decided to set up a retail outlet which was to be Company owned and Company operated, in short COCO outlet. At a point of time Maintaining and Handling Contractor was appointed for about a year and the person saddled with the responsibility was one Rishideo Chaudhary. Unfortunately the said Rishideo Chaudhary expired on 18.3.2008 and it is said that the outlet in question was closed down and is not being operated either by the Company or through his any of the representatives. 4. The three petitioners have turned out in full strength, in the writ application because they are jointly claiming that they should be allowed to step into, the shoes of said late Rishideo Choudhary as maintaining and handling contractor. They state that after all the land belongs to the family specially petitioner no. 2 and at one point of time some interest was shown by the respondent Company in the daughter of the petitioner, namely, Seema Bharti. Since she was a minor, the matter did not proceed beyond a point. 5. The stand of the respondent Corporation in the counter affidavit filed on their behalf is that the petitioners have no right, fundamental or statutory kind available in their favour to be appointed as dealer or handling contractors for the outlet in question. In fact, a bare perusal of Annexure-1 would show that the lease entered between petitioner no. 2 and the Company was with clear understanding on the issue that none of the petitioners more so petitioner no. In fact, a bare perusal of Annexure-1 would show that the lease entered between petitioner no. 2 and the Company was with clear understanding on the issue that none of the petitioners more so petitioner no. 2 would be entitled to claim any kind of right for dealership because land was rented out on lease to the Company. 6. It was an offer made by the Company which was readily accepted by petitioner no. 2 and she is getting rent regularly for the piece and parcel of land. In absence of any policy decision or any law supporting the claim of these petitioners no direction ought to be issued for their appointment. The Company however does not deny the fact that these petitioners have their own right as citizens to make applications for consideration, as and when an advertisement is made for any of the location in that area or may be even for the outlet in question, if the Company decides to do so in future. But merely because the land is owned by petitioner no. 2 she does not get any special right to be appointed as dealer, as if the land is easy passage to dealership. 7. Learned counsel representing the petitioners thereafter submits that they only want consideration on the application made in this regard and that to be considered sympathetically. 8. That is the matter between the petitioners and the Company. So far as a direction or relief is concerned, in absence of any right having been established the Court shall not pass any order in favour of the petitioners in this regard. 9. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed.