JUDGMENT : SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J. 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the advertisement issued by the respondent No. 2 and published in the daily newspaper namely ‘Prabhat Khabar’ as contained under Annexure-2 is under challenge by which the applications were invited for setting up of shops for sale of liquor in the State of Jharkhand. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that one rule has been enacted upon by the State of Jharkhand in the name of Jharkhand Excise (Control and Settlement of Retail Sale of Liquor) Rules, 2018 wherein under Rule 10 the procedure of sale notification has specifically provided that the sale notification would be published in the daily newspaper with specific stipulation therein with the name of shops which is to be settled by giving particular location but as would be evident from the advertisement that no such stipulation has been made, therefore, the said advertisement published as per Rule, 2018, is not sustainable. 3. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned SC-IV, appearing for the State-respondent, has submitted that the locus of the petitioner is that he has not participated in terms of the said advertisement since there is no settlement to that effect and as such on the ground of locus itself the writ petition may be held to be not sustainable. He further submits that the pleading made in the writ petition suggests that the same is in the nature of public interest and therefore, the adversary litigation like the instant writ petition may not be entertained. His further submission is that the advertisement has been made, in pursuance thereto, the bidders have participated in the bids for settlement of shops and the settlement has also been finalized and now the settlee are carrying on their business as such the third party rights has been created in favour of the settlee, in view thereof, also the writ petition is not maintainable since the petitioner has not impleaded the settlee of the shops in pursuance to the advertisement in question as party to the proceeding. 4. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions it is evident from the material available on record that the State of Jharkhand has some out with the rule known as Jharkhand Excise (Operation and Allotment of Shops for sale of Liquor) Rules, 2018 by exercising the power conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 89 of the Jharkhand Excise Act, 1915 whereby and whereunder the provision for settlement of liquor shops within the State of Jharkhand has been enacted upon. It is evident from the aforesaid Rule as contained under Annexure-1 that the process of settlement has been provided therein along with the other statutory rules to be followed by the authorities for settlement of the shops, one of the rule is under Rule 10 which contains the provision for publication of sale notification wherein sub-rule (1) provides that the sale notification would be issued in leading daily newspaper of the State to be published within 15 days from the date of settlement and in the special circumstances even from less than the aforesaid 15 days. Sub-rule (3) provides that any sale notification, the rule would be specific stipulation with respect to the details of the each shops, annual minimum guarantee revenue (duty), annual minimum excise transport duty, annual license, earnest money and the bill pertaining to the application would be furnished but according to the petitioner the aforesaid detail is required under the provision of sub-rule (3) to Rule 10 which is not provided in the advertisement and as such the advertisement since is not in consonance with statutory rule, therefore, not sustainable in the eye of law. It is evident from the provision as contained under Rule 10 that the statute requires that a sale notification would be issued containing therein the requirement as stipulated under sub-rule (3) to Rule 10 as also the details furnished is required under Rule 11 to the Rule, 2018. It is evident from the provision as contained under Rule 10 that the statute requires that a sale notification would be issued containing therein the requirement as stipulated under sub-rule (3) to Rule 10 as also the details furnished is required under Rule 11 to the Rule, 2018. It cannot be disputed that any rule provided under any condition is incumbent upon the concerned authority to act in pursuance to the provision of law otherwise entire thing will be said to be contrary to the law and would be not sustainable and considering the aforesaid legal position, the argument advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties have been appreciated by this Court, after going across the advertisement as contained under Annexure-2, has found that a press notice was published which has been annexed by the petitioner wherein reference of notification issued by the Member, Board of Revenue has been made which suggests that there is a notification having been issued by the Member, Board of Revenue. It also needs to refer herein that the Member, Board of Revenue under the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, now the Jharkhand Excise Act, 1915 is the ultimate authority in issuing any notification containing the rule in view of the provision of Section 90 of the Act, 1915 and since the stipulation to that effect has been made by stating in the aforesaid advertisement that the process of settlement would be made on the basis of approved notification by the Member, Board of Revenue but the petitioner has not brought on record the aforesaid notification justifying his grievance that there is no notification issued and in absence thereof the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner cannot be appreciated by this court as to whether the stipulation made in the provision of Rule 10 or Rule 11 of the Rule, 2018 has been followed or not? Admitted case of the petitioner is that he is not a bidder and had not participated in the bid, therefore, question of locus has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the State Government. 5. Admitted case of the petitioner is that he is not a bidder and had not participated in the bid, therefore, question of locus has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the State Government. 5. The question of locus is the subject matter of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, AIR 2013 SC 58 wherein it has been held that a person who has suffered or suffers from any legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of a enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint made by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the Authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction that, the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. Infact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. 6. It is in the light of the aforesaid proposition of law as has been argued by Mr. Ashutosh Anand learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M.S. Jayaraj vs. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala, (2000) 7 SCC 552 and has submitted that even any citizen of the country will have locus to assail the question of settlement of liquor shop and relying upon the aforesaid judgment it has been argued that the petitioner has got locus to assail the aforesaid advertisement, therefore, the writ petition is made maintainable. So far as the factual aspect involved in the case of M.S. Jayaraj vs. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala (supra) it is not in dispute that so far as the shop of liquor is concerned, a citizen has got right to make an objection if the settlement has been made contrary to the statutory rule since the consumption of liquor affect the society at large and therefore when there will be adverse effect in case of utilizing the liquor the citizen whose interest is being jeopardized will have right to question the action of the state authority and in that light of the fact the Hon’ble Apex Court has pleased to hold in the aforesaid judgment that a citizen has got right to challenge the settlement of shops of liquor if made contrary to the provision of law but so far as the factual aspect involved in this case is concerned, it is not a case that the petitioner is aggrieved with the settlement of any liquor shop rather he is in support of settlement of liquor shop but the settlement is to be made in terms of the provision of law and therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is in no way concerned and applicable in the facts of this case, rather what has been gathered by this Court that if the advertisement would have been issued in terms of the provision of rule there would be no objection on the part of the petitioner and therefore the judgment rendered in by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M.S. Jayaraj vs. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala (supra)is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case rather this Court while examining the factual aspect involved in this case and on assessment of the legal position regarding the locusstandias has been decided in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (supra) is of the view that the petitioner is having no locus since none of his legal vested right is being infringed upon. 7. 7. This Court has also examined the issue on different angle by considering the fact that the advertisement has been challenged and the said advertisement has attained its finality since shops have been settled in favour of the settlee but the subsequent development of settlement of the liquor shop in favour of the settlee have not been brought on record and if any order would be passed at this juncture, the interest which has been accrued in favour of the settlee will adversely be affected and as such it will not be proper to pass order in their absence. 8. In view thereof and in the entirety of facts and circumstances and on the basis of observations made hereinabove, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.