Protik Prakash Banerjee,J. - (1.) Today's hearing was fixed for considering the reply of Mr. Ashoke Banerjee, learned senior advocate for the petitioner, on the question of locus which was raised by Mr. Shakti Nath Mukherjee, learned senior advocate for the respondent no.4. The only fact which is required to be noted very briefly to answer the question of locus are that in an earlier ground of litigation between the same parties the present private respondent had impeached a letter of intent issued to the present writ petitioner, inter alia, on the question of the present writ petitioner being ineligible under the essential conditions of the advertisement. The present private respondents had succeeded in his writ petition. From the said decision the present writ petitioner had carried an appeal to the Hon'ble Division Bench. Before the Hon'ble Division Bench all the points raised by the petitioner except one was negatived. The one point which was not negatived was the allegation that the present private respondent was also ineligible in terms of the eligibility criteria, as advertised, though the Hon'ble Division Bench had not agreed with the contention of the present writ petitioner that this should have been considered by the learned Single Bench. The Hon'ble Division Bench has recorded as follows on this point:- "50. We also cannot accept the contention of the appellant that the learned Judge ought to have considered whether the writ petitioner satisfied the eligibility criteria regarding residential status, that is, whether he was a resident of Singhee Gram Panchayet or not. As per the usual procedure, verificiation of the truthfulness of the disclosures made by the applicants are done after the lottry/draw and if the writ petitioner succeeds in the re-draw, the oil company would be bound to verify his documents thereafter."
(2.) Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior advocate, had submitted that when the present writ petitioner was a party to a proceeding where all his contentions had been raised and decided not merely upto the Hon'ble Division Bench but upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and he had lost and the finding that he was disqualified in terms of the essential conditions of eligibility had achieved finality he cannot be heard to impeach the eligibility of the present private respondents or re-draw by the authorities to issue a letter of intent in his favour or even give effect to the re-draw held on August 28, 2018 pursuant to the decisions in the earlier round of litigation which had become final. Mr. Mukherjee has relied upon the judgments reported in, inter alia, (1999)1 SCC 492 (Raunaq International Limited Vs. I.V.R.Construction Ltd. and Ors.) at page 27 where it has been clearly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that any judicial relief at the instance of a party who does not fulfill the requisite criteria seems to be misplaced. This was, of course, in the context of the question of granting stay while hearing the writ petition and not a final relief. Mr. Mukherjee has also relied upon a judgment reported in (1997)4 SCC 426 (University of Cochin Vs. N.S.Kanjoonjamma &Ors.) at page 4 on the question of estoppel against the writ petitioner when the writ petitioner was a candidate who had applied for and sat for selection and had remained unsuccessful. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case had held having participated in the selection the candidate was estopped from challenging the correctness of the procedure. Of course the question of fraud had not been raised in the said case and here Mr. Banerjee's client has raised a question of collusion by the oil marketing company and the relies on a document which subsequently was alleged by the authority concerned not to have been issued from his office under Right to Information Act.
(3.) Mr. Mukherjee had relied upon the judgment reported in (2001)4SCC234 (Vinoy Kumar Vs. State of U.P.& Ors.) at paragraph 2 thereof. This judgment, however, poses some difficulty for Mr. Banerjee. Paragraph 2 of the said judgment holds as follows:- "2. Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The exception to the general rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of habeas corps or quo warranto or filed in public interest. It is a matter of prudence, that the court confines the exercise of writ jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or legal injuries are caused to a particular person or his fundamental rights are violated, and not to entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the instance of third party where there is an effective legal aid organisation which can take care of such cases. Even in cases filed in public interest, the court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined class of persons is, by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief. " ;