Locus standi in writ challenges requires a legally sufficient interest, and non-compliance with court directions can defeat maintainability.

A writ challenge to a public notice failed because the petitioner could not show a legally sufficient interest and had no trade contracts from China. The Court also noted non-compliance with an earlier interim direction requiring applications to be filed before the second respondent, which weighed against further entertaining the petition. On these facts, the petitioner lacked locus standi, and the writ petition was not entertained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner had locus standi to challenge the impugned public notice and whether the writ petition was maintainable.

Analysis: The petitioner failed to comply with the interim direction requiring filing of applications before the second respondent, and the Court found that the petitioner did not have any trade contracts from China. On that basis, the Court held that the petitioner lacked the necessary standing to assail the public notice. The non-compliance with the earlier direction also weighed against entertaining the writ petition further.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on the ground of absence of locus standi and the challenge to the public notice failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petitioner must establish a legally sufficient interest and comply with the Court's interim directions to sustain a challenge; in the absence of locus standi, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

---