IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7087 of 2011 Babli Kumari Singh, wife of Sanjeev Kumar Singh, resident of village Ghosi Amnour, P.O. and P.S. Amnour, District Saran. … Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India through under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi 2. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through its Senior Regional Manager, Patna L.P.G. Region 6th Floor Loknayak Jaiprakash Bhawan, Dakbanglow Chowk 3. The Senior Regional Manager, Patna L.P.G. 6th Floor Loknayak Jaiprakash Bhawan, Dakbanglow Chowk, Patna 4. The Director (Marketing) Hindustan Petoleum Corporation Ltd., Hindustan Bhawan, 17, Jamshedji TATA Road, Mumbai-400020. 5. Senior Regional Manager, Patna L.P.G. Region 6th Floor Loknayak Jaiprakash Bhawan, Dakbanglow Chowk, Patna. 6. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Marhowrah, District Saran. 7. The Circle Officer, Amnour, District Saran … Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s Sharda Nand Mishra and Rananjay Kumar, Advocates For the H.P.C.L. : Dr. Pankaj, Advocate For the Union of India : None. -------- 04/ 07.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and its authorities. No one appears for respondent-Union of India. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging letter dated 29.03.2011 (Annexure 7), by which the candidature of the petitioner for award of Rajeev Gandhi Gramin L.P.G. Vitrak ( R.G.G. L.V. ) at location Amnour in the district of Saran under general category advertised on 17.10.2009 was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner was not a resident of the advertised location. 3. Annexure B to respondents’ counter-affidavit is a 2 copy of the advertisement issued by respondent-Corporation on 17.10.2009 inviting applications for grant of Rajeev Gandhi Gramin L.P.G. Vitrak at hundreds of location including village Amnour under open category, which is at serial no. 126 of the said advertisement and the application filed by the petitioner showed his residence as Ghosi Amnour. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no mauza/village in the name of Amnour, rather the petitioner is a resident of Ghosi Amnour, which is a tola of village Amnour Sultan and which she had specifically and correctly stated in her application and hence there being no mis-statement in her application, there was no occasion for the authorities to reject the claim of the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent- Corporation has produced Annexure C, which is brochure for selection of R.G.G. L.V. and Annexure E, which is the investigation report for R.G.G. L.V. at village Amnour, in which it was found that there is no village by the name of Amnour, rather there are four villages, namely, Amnour Harnarayan, Amnour Aguan (I & II), Amnour Kalyan and Amnour Sultan and on that basis statement has been made by the respondents in paragraph no. 9.4 of their counter affidavit submitting that there being no revenue village by the name of Amnour, which is advertised location, the entire proceeding with respect to the said village is vitiated. 6. From the certificate of the Anchal Adhikari dated 3 23.08.2010 produced by the petitioner as Annexure 6 to this writ petition also, it is apparent that there is no village by the name of Amnour only, rather name of the petitioner’s residence is Tola Ghosi Amnour, which is a part of village Amnour Sultan. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the basis of the entire dispute, namely, the mention of the advertised location as village Amnour is not correct, due to which respondents themselves have admitted that the entire proceeding with respect to the said village Amnour is vitiated. 8. Accordingly, the impugned orders of the authorities dated 23.08.2000 and 28.03.2011 as well as the advertisement concerned with respect to village Amnour are held to be not valid in law and are, accordingly, quashed, with a liberty to respondent- Corporation to issue a fresh advertisement with respect to the proper revenue village. 9. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )