// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8665/2004 Vinita Suwalaka W/o Shri Naresh Suwalaka Versus Union of India through Secretary, Department of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi and Others Date of Order ::: 23.05.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Ashwani Chobisa, Counsel for petitioner Shri K. Verma, Advocate, for Shri S. Kasliwal, and Shri S.K. Sharma, Advocate, for Shri K.K. Sharma, and Shri R.P. Garg, Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner preferred this writ petition challenging the selection of respondent No.4 for grant of LPG Distributorship and further to grant the same to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per the Advertisement Annexure-1 dated 6th May, 2002 there was a specific condition that selected candidate will provide unencumbered land within a period of two months from the date of its allotment otherwise dealership was liable to be cancelled. The respondent No.4 failed to provide the same within a period of two months, therefore, the dealership of respondent No.4 ought to have been cancelled. It is further // 2 // contended that so far as another land i.e. Khasra No.2614/6088 is concerned, the villagers objected for it, therefore, the respondents No.2 and 3 committed an illegality in not cancelling the dealership of respondent No.4 and not providing the same to the petitioner, who was at Serial No.2 in selection- list. In pursuance of the notice to show cause the respondents No.2 and 3 as well as the respondent No.4 both have filed their separate replies to the writ petition, wherein it is contended that the petitioner is not disputing this fact that the respondent No.4 was selected for retail outlet dealership/LPG Distributorship. The respondent No.4 contended that it is incorrect that earlier the land was changed on account of representation submitted by the villagers but the fact is that at the time of pre-investigation by the Officers of the Corporation, they found that the land bearing Khasra No.2614/6088 is more suitable for the purpose of installation of station and consequently the same has been installed on the said land. It is further contended that the land has already been converted. The order of conversion was challenged and the interim stay order was granted but an appeal filed in this regard has already been dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. The order of the Revenue Appellate Authority was further challenged before the Revenue Board and the same has been confirmed by the Revenue Board also. In these circumstances, the dispute in this regard has become final. // 3 // In view of the above, it is clear that the ground to challenge the dealership of respondent No.4 does not now exist. The respondent No.4 is already working since 2004. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//