Manojit Bhuyan,] 1. Heard Mr. T. Son, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General, State of Arunachal Pradesh. Having regard to the facts involved in this appeal, this appeal is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. Espousing the cause of an unsuccessful Bidder, i.e., M/s. Lokam Brothers, the appellant herein along with two others had challenged the acceptance of bid in favour of the private respondent in respect of the work, namely, Construction of Road from "Sangram to Phassang via Additional Deputy Commissioner Hq. Nyapin under SPA Scheme" The appellant had represented M/s. Lokam Brothers on the strength of the undated authorization letter, which is extracted hereunder : "AUTHORISATION LETTER I SRI LOKAM NAI, Proprietor of M/s. LOKAM BROTHER'S & Circle Officer. NYOKUM LAPANG, P.O. & P.S. ITANAGAR, Distt. PAPUM PARE, Arunachal Pradesh do hereby authorise Smt. Kipa Yarak of Sang go village, P.O. Nyapin, P.S. Nyapin, Phassang Circle, District - Kurung Kumey(AP) to receive and submit Tender Documents against the name of Work-C/O. Construction of road from Sangram to Phassang Via Additional Deputy Commissioner HQ Nyapin Under SPA and also authorized to sign in any Tender Documents related to above mentioned work. The Specimen Signature is attested below: 1. Smt. Kipa Yagak: (LOKAMNAI) Proprietor M/s. Lokam Brother's & Co. Nyokum Lapang, Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh." 3. By the said un-dated authorization letter, the appellant was only authorized to collect/receive and submit tender documents on behalf of M/s. lokam Brothers. In the course of hearing before the learned Single Judge, Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned A.A.G., Arunachal Pradesh seriously questioned the locus standi of the appellant, submitting that the appellant is not an aggrieved person and no Power of Attorney having been issued by M/s. Lokam Brothers in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner, as such the writ petition was not maintainable on account of lack of locus standi. According to Mr. Nabam, learned A.A.G., Arunachal Pradesh, the appellant had no authority to institute a legal proceeding on behalf of M/s. Lokam Brothers. The said objection raised by Mr. Nabam, learned A.A.G., Arunachal Pradesh was duly considered by the learned Single Jude on the materials available on record and by a detailed judgement touching upon the basic facts and on the point of locus, dismissed the writ petition vide judgement and order dated 715.2015. 4. The said objection raised by Mr. Nabam, learned A.A.G., Arunachal Pradesh was duly considered by the learned Single Jude on the materials available on record and by a detailed judgement touching upon the basic facts and on the point of locus, dismissed the writ petition vide judgement and order dated 715.2015. 4. Challenge to the said order dated 7.5.2015 made in this writ appeal is primarily on the ground that the counsel for the petitioner had sought for withdrawal of the writ petition from file, which was not acceded to by the learned Single Judge. Another ground taken is that although the appellant/petitioner was holding the Power of Attorney on behalf of M/s. Lokam Brothers for instituting legal proceedings but the same could not be annexed to the writ petition on account of mistake of the Advocate's Clerk and the said fact was not considered by the learned Single Judge by granting liberty to cure the defect. 5. There is no manner of doubt that in the writ petition, no document was enclosed showing the petitioner's authority to act and/or to institute legal proceedings on behalf of M/s. Lokam Brothers. The only document annexed thereto, was the undated authorization letter, as quoted above. Mr. T. Son, learned counsel for the appellant submits that his prayer for withdrawing the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition, not having been acceded to, as such the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot stand the scrutiny of law. 6. The issue before this court is as to whether the appellant is a 'person aggrieved' and had the locus to represent M/s. lokam Brothers short of any power of authorization in the form as required under the law. 7. The concept of locus standi for filing a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India have received consideration in a catena of decisions rendered by the Apex Court. In this context, reference is made to the decision in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Toshan Kumar and Others, AIR 1976 SC 578 . 7. The concept of locus standi for filing a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India have received consideration in a catena of decisions rendered by the Apex Court. In this context, reference is made to the decision in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Toshan Kumar and Others, AIR 1976 SC 578 . The consistent view of the Apex Court in respect of the concept of locus standi makes it clear that although the expression 'aggrieved person' denotes an elastic and elusive concept, however, the person approaching the writ court must necessarily show the extent of his interest as well as the nature and extent of pre-judice or injury suffered by him. In other-words, an aggrieved person is one who has a particular or peculiar interest of his own. In the reported judgment, the Apex Court had further elucidated that a person aggrieved must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something or wrongfully affected his title to something. In fact, the Apex Court have laid down that to have locus standi in invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226, the applicant should ordinarily be one who has a personal or individual right in the subject-matter. 8. From the available records, it is apparent that the appellant is not a person aggrieved. He has not submitted the documents to show under what circumstances and under what authority he could espouse the cause of M/s. Lokam Brothers. The locus of the appellant being wholly absent, there is no infirmity in the findings and decisions of the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition oh the limited ground. 9. Before this court, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has produced a photocopy of an undated General Power of Attorney alleged to have been registered on 15.1.2015. The authenticity of the said General Power of Attorney has been seriously objected to by Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned A.A.G., Arunachal Pradesh. It would be worthwhile to mention that a bare perusal of the photocopy of the General Power of Attorney produced by Mr. T. Son, learned counsel for the appellant, do not appear to be a document registered before an appropriate Registering Authority as required under the law. R.H. Nabam, learned A.A.G., Arunachal Pradesh. It would be worthwhile to mention that a bare perusal of the photocopy of the General Power of Attorney produced by Mr. T. Son, learned counsel for the appellant, do not appear to be a document registered before an appropriate Registering Authority as required under the law. In fact, the said Power of Attorney do not indicate as to on which date the same was executed. It would also be worthwhile to mention that the Power of Attorney now produced before this court was not produced before the learned Single Judge. 10. Be that as it may, without expressing any opinion on the veracity and/ or authenticity of the photocopy of the General Power of Attorney, this court holds that the appeal do not merit consideration. There is no gainsaying that the writ petition filed by Smt. Kipa Yagak on behalf of M/s. Lokam Brothers was absolutely without any authority. As such, the findings and decisions of the Learned Single Judge remains un-assailable. 11. This appeal, on the premises above, merits dismissal, which is accordingly done. However, the issue with regard to any future course of action that the writ appellant may initiate, is left open with the rider that in case any writ proceedings is instituted either by M/s. Lokam Brothers or by the present appellant aforementioned, the same shall be subject to the legality, veracity and authenticity of the Power of Attorney, as referred to above. 12. In view of the above, this writ appeal stands dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.