Guidelines without statutory force are not binding and cannot be invoked to challenge commercial contracts.

The petitioner operates a "Yatri Plaza" for A.C. buses on the Moradabad-Delhi route under a three-year contract dated 19.10.2024 with the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ("Corporation").

On 16.07.2025, the Corporation issued a new e-tender for an additional Yatri Plaza for A.C. buses on the same route.

The petitioner challenged this tender, alleging it violated the Corporation's policy dated 26.11.2020 (which supposedly restricted new plazas based on bus volume) and harmed the petitioner's commercial interests after significant investment.

1. Whether the petitioner has the locus standi or legal right to challenge the E-Tender/Advertisement?

2. Whether the tender is vitiated by arbitrariness, bias, or violation of the Corporation's own policy/guidelines?

3. Whether opening a new Yatri Plaza via the impugned tender is contrary to public interest?

The Court applied the doctrine of locus standi as established in Vinoy Kumar v. State of U.P., holding that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is generally confined to cases of legal injury or violation of fundamental rights.

The Court relied on Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, which mandates that commercial transactions by the State should not be interfered with unless the decision is mala fide or against public interest.

The Court applied the principle that administrative guidelines not issued under a statute do not have a binding force and cannot be the basis for a legal challenge.

The Court observed that the relationship between the petitioner and the Corporation is governed by a non-statutory commercial contract.

The Court found no clause in the contract dated 19.10.2024 prohibiting the Corporation from opening additional plazas in the same vicinity.

Regarding the policy dated 26.11.2020, the Court ruled these were mere internal guidelines without statutory force.

The Court noted that Clause A-2 of the guidelines did not impose a 300-bus minimum for A.C. bus plazas, distinguishing them from regular bus plazas.

The Court reasoned that the petitioner failed to show any "legal injury" as their claim was purely based on protecting private commercial profit from competition.

The petitioner has no right to challenge the tender for commercial competition; there was no arbitrariness or policy violation; and more plazas promote healthy competition and better services, which is in the public interest.

All interim orders were vacated.