C.W.P. No.21413 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.21413 of 2011 Date of Decision.18.11.2011 Gurpreet Singh son of Mohinder Singh, resident of village and Post Office Varpal, District Amritsar .....Petitioner Versus Indian Oil Corporation and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. R.K. Sharma-II, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition challenges the order of rejection of the petitioner's activity for allotment of LPG dealership. The rejection has been made on the ground that he does not own land at the advertised location. In the brochure for selection of dealership, the requirements are spelt out which include, inter alia, in Clause (g) as follows:- “own a suitable land (plot) of minimum 20 metre X 24 metre in dimension at the advertised RGGLV location for construction of LPG cylinder Storage Godwon. Own means having clear ownership title of the property in the name of applicant/family member of the 'Family Unit' as defined in multiple dealership/distributorship norm. In case of ownership/co-ownership by family member, consent letter from the family member will be required. Land for construction of Godown will be considered suitable, if it is freely accessible through all weather motorable approach road (public road or private road of the applicant connecting to the public road) and should be plain, in one contiguous plot, free from live overhead power transmission or telephone lines. Pipelines/Canals/Drainage/Nallahs should not be passing through the plot.” C.W.P. No.21413 of 2011 -2- 2. Learned counsel states that this condition is unreasonable and he has given a representation that in respect of other advertisement, no such condition has been made. The petitioner cannot have a relief which he seeks for so long as the condition itself is not under challenge before me. Learned counsel also wants to contend that there were other deficiencies in the manner in which the selection is made. I find that the petitioner has no locus standi, since he does not fulfill the condition for consideration and hence he shall not be heard on any other deficiencies, which are said to prevail in the manner of selection. 3. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 18, 2011 Pankaj*