IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4863 of 2011 Mukesh Kr.Singh, S/o Prabhunath Singh, resident of Village + P.O.- Hasanpura, P.S.- Hasanpura, District-Siwan. ……… Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Petroleum and Natural Gas Department, New Delhi. 2. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Reg. Office, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East) Mumbai- 400 051 (India) through its General Manager. 3. The Senior Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., First Floor Shahi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna. …….. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Prabhakar Singh, Advocate. For the respondents- : Mr. K.D.Chaterjee, Senior Advocate. Corporation. --------- 02/ 06.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging letter dated 06.01.2011 (Annexure-5) by which Senior Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (respondent no.3) informed the petitioner that his candidature for the award of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd at village- Hasanpura has been cancelled on the ground that the land offered for godown in his application was not as per the advertised location at village-Hasnapura, rather it is situated at village- Sahuli. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has claimed that in compliance of the advertisement he had filed his application within time on 26.11.2009 and had offered two lands, one situated at village- Sahuli and the other situated at village- Hasanpur. He submits that village- Sahuli is situated just adjacent to village- - 2 - Hasanpura and his candidature should not have been rejected on the said ground and furthermore, the other land offered by him was situated at village-Hasanpur itself. 4. From the arguments of learned counsel for the parties as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that advertisement was published in the newspaper calling for application for distributorship of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) for a large number of places, including village Hasanpura in the district of Siwan which was at serial no.245 of the advertisement. From the said advertisement, it is quite apparent that the land required at the said serial was of village-Hasanpura and not any other place adjacent to it. Hence, claim of the petitioner with regard to his land situated in village -Sahuli for which he has also filed a registered sale deed showing the land situated at village-Sahuli, not being within the advertised location, the authorities were quite justified in rejecting the said claim. So far the land of Hasanpura as claimed by the petitioner is concerned, there is no document to show that petitioner is the owner of any land or premises at village- Hasanpura as per the criteria fixed in the advertisement and hence the claim of the petitioner, not being supported by any document, cannot be relied upon. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition has got no merit at all and is, accordingly, dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)