Judgment :- This writ petition has been filed for a writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned advertisement dated 01.11.2010 published in 'Dinakaran' daily newspaper issued by the first respondent relating to the selection of dealership with regard to S.No.89, Left Hand Side (Thennilai Road) of the road between Salaipudur and Marketing Committee, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct an enquiry through the Grievance Committee to disqualify the name of the fourth respondent who is Empanelled No.1 and thereby direct the respondents 1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner as a dealer for the out let in respect of the place in Serial No.111, Thaluvampalayam mentioned in the previous advertisement published in the 'Dinakaran' daily newspaper dated 20.06.2010. 2. The petitioner's plea as set out in paragraph 11 and 12 is not refuted by the respondents in counter affidavit. However, that cannot be the ground to entertain the writ petition and grant the relief as sought for. Paragraph 11 and 12 of the affidavit reads as follows: "I submit that the above advertisement was issued only with a view to give allotment to the 4th respondent or to a person of their choice and also to eliminate me from the process of selection. I submit that, so far, no such advertisement has been issued to appoint a dealer after selecting a specific place to avoid the participation of any other candidate. I submit that the 'place' notified in the impugned advertisement is the land of one Balasubramaniam, who has already executed a lease in favour of the respondents 2 and 4 for the purpose of getting the H.P.outlet in the earlier advertisement dated 20.06.2010. Since the said select list has been kept in abeyance in view of my complaint dated 15.10.2010, the respondents 1 and 2 have adopted a naval method of issuing a fresh advertisement by simply changing the place as "Left Hand Side (Thennailai Road) of the road between Salaipudur and Marketing Committee" instead of "Thaluvampalayam". 12. I submit that the respondents have already pre-determined to give allotment in the name of the 4th respondent which is evident from the selection of the same place in the subsequent impugned advertisement. 12. I submit that the respondents have already pre-determined to give allotment in the name of the 4th respondent which is evident from the selection of the same place in the subsequent impugned advertisement. I submit that the existing land use pattern notified in the impugned advertisement would show that except the 4th respondent who has entered into a lease with the land owner, no one can apply for the place mentioned in S.No.89 in the impugned notification. I submit that, in the normal circumstances, the respondents 1 and 2 have to issue advertisement by mentioning the place as main road, village etc., Whereas, the respondents 1 and 2 have conveniently 'fixed' the place Left Hand Side of Thennilai Road and thereby clandestinely prevented others, including me, from participating in the selection. I submit that I am owing lands on the right hand side of Thennilai Road. Similarly, others are also having lands on the right hand side, but the entire extent of the left hand side of the Road has already been converted as house site except the place notified in the impugned advertisement." 3. This Court finds no material in support of the allegations made in paragraph 11 and 12 of the affidavit of the petitioner. The petitioner refers to the earlier round of litigation to state that the present notification which is under challenge is invalid and biased and intended to the benefit of fourth respondent. It is true that the earlier notification was cancelled consequent to a complaint to the Grievance Cell, by proceedings dated 15.10.2010. The selection of the fourth respondent was cancelled on 19.12.2004. In the impugned advertisement dated 01.11.2012 S.No.89 is the issue in dispute, it reads as follows: “Tamil” This according to the petitioner is biased and arbitrary. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the place that has been identified by the second respondent is only to benefit the fourth respondent. This statement of the petitioner is refuted by the learned counsel for the respondents 1, 2 and 3 stating that the respondents identified different places based on survey, inspection and need based requirement. In particular he pointed out S.No.35, 36, 45, 47, 67, 68, 76, 88, 103, 104, 107 and 125 of the notification were specific areas have been identified for establishment of petroleum outlet stating that the description of the location is almost similar. In particular he pointed out S.No.35, 36, 45, 47, 67, 68, 76, 88, 103, 104, 107 and 125 of the notification were specific areas have been identified for establishment of petroleum outlet stating that the description of the location is almost similar. In the present case also the area was identified after survey, inspection and based on requirement. Therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the choice of location as per the respondents requirement. Particularly when the petitioner has not chosen to participate in the selection process. No right vest in the petitioner to challenge the notification relating to location of petroleum outlet and it is purely the right and domain of the respondents 1 to 3. 5. On this plea, this Court is inclined to accept the stand of the respondents 1 to 3 that the places on which retail outlet will be located will be the prerogative right of the respondents. This Court is not inclined to interfere in the petroleum outlet identification process and that is not the role of the Court also. The respondents 1 to 3 have the right to fix the location or identify the place as per their choice and requirement, which it is stated to be after inspection, survey and after considering technical and financial feasibility. Hence the petitioner's plea stands rejected. 6. The another plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no land available except the land of the 4th respondent and therefore, petitioner could not participate in the selection proceedings is an allegation not supported by any materials, except the allegation in the affidavit filed. In any event, this Court is not inclined to go in to a fact finding enquiry to ascertain whether any such land is available for locating the petroleum retail outlet in the area specified. The specific stand in the counter affidavit is that the advertisement has not been issued for a specific place as alleged. In so far as S.No.89 is concerned even if the petitioner's plea is considered for the sake of argument, this Court finds no specific survey number or location of land with boundaries identified so as to state that the land of one particular person alone has been identified for the purpose of locating the petitioner retail outlet. The allegation on the face of it appears to be fallacious. The allegation on the face of it appears to be fallacious. The various location as pointed out by counsel for respondents 1 to 3 clearly establishes that description of the place is given for better identification of the outlet and this cannot be faulted. Sl.No.89 alone cannot be faulted on the plea of the petitioner. 7. The next plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is by relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India and Others reported in 1979 (3) SCC 489 referring to paragraph 11 where it is held that Government acts in granting largesse should not be arbitrary. The above said case cannot be applied to the facts of the present case, as in the case on hand, the notification is for petroleum outlet relates to more than 381 places. The S.No.89, which is under challenge is one amongst the 381 identified place. Merely because the petitioner is not able to identify a land of his choice in a particular location, that by itself will not be a ground for the petitioner to challenge notification stating that the particular place in the said notification is issued with malafides and bias. There is no document or material to support such plea. 8. In any event, the Supreme Court Judgment referred to above, will not apply to the facts of the petitioner as the petitioner did not participate in the selection process. Petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the notification. Finding no merit, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.