Judgment :- 1. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the second respondent to issue a fresh paper publication, calling for application from all interested persons to establish retail outlet at Regunathapuram Village, Karambakudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District. 2. According to the petitioner, he is a wealthy person and doing business of paddy wholesale merchant by procuring paddy from small farmers and sold it in bulk. The second respondent, made a paper publication, on 20.10.2010, calling for applications from the interested persons to establish retail outlet to sell the petroleum product in rural areas. In the paper publication, in column Nos.2, 3 and 4, the names of the Village, Taluk and District, in Serial No.195, were stated as "Renganathapuram", "Karambakudi" and "Pudukkottai" respectively. According to the petitioner, there is no Village by name, Renganathapuram in Karambakkudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District. Therefore, the petitioner expressed his intention to apply for the dealership and requested the second respondent to issue a fresh paper publication by mentioning the correct Village name i.e., Regunathapuram. 3. The second respondent informed the petitioner that fresh publication will be issued. Believing the words of the second respondent, the petitioner did not apply and expecting fresh publication from the second respondent in the newspaper. But, the second respondent did not issue any fresh paper publication. In the first week of July 2011, the petitioner came to know that the third respondent herein was taking steps to establish the petrol bunk i.e., petroleum retail outlet in Regunathapuram Village, in S.No.57/11. The second respondent also inspected the said place and gave concurrence for setting up a retail outlet in the Village. According to the petitioner, respondents 2 and 3 colluded together and intentionally made a wrong paper publication, so as to prevent the other persons from applying for dealership in Regunathapuram Village, Karambakudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the relief stated supra. 4. The second respondent filed counter affidavit denying the various averments made by the petitioner. It is stated that in English daily, the name of the Village is correctly given as "Regunathapuram". The petitioner did not apply for the dealership and he is a third party to the dealership. The second respondent called for applications from the eligible candidates for appointment of dealership. As per the guidelines, the applications were scrutinized and interview was conducted. It is stated that in English daily, the name of the Village is correctly given as "Regunathapuram". The petitioner did not apply for the dealership and he is a third party to the dealership. The second respondent called for applications from the eligible candidates for appointment of dealership. As per the guidelines, the applications were scrutinized and interview was conducted. After following the procedure and as per the guidelines, the Letter of Indent was issued to the third respondent on 25.01.2012 and the petroleum retail outlet was commissioned as early as on 31.07.2012. It is further stated that the third respondent is running the retail outlet. Without challenging the selection of the third respondent, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the second respondent to issue a fresh paper publication for the subject location, which is not maintainable and therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsels for the respondents 1 and 2 reiterated the averments made in the affidavit and counter affidavit. 6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials on record. 7. From the records, it is seen that the petitioner has not produced any proof to show that he has approached the second respondent by way of representation and he has not filed any acknowledgement. The Letter of Indent was issued to the third respondent on 25.01.2012 and the petroleum outlet was commissioned on 31.07.2012 and the third respondent is running the retail outlet. 8. In view of the above, the relief sought for in the writ petition is not maintainable. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.