IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3613 of 2011 ---------- Chandrabhan Shastri, son of Sri Ram Murat, resident of Village +P.O. Panchrukhi, District Siwan, Bihar. … Petitioner -versus- 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, Shashtri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001 2. The Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., G-9, Ali Yavar Jarg Marg, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400051. 3. The General Manager, (LPG) Bihar State Office, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Frazer Road, Patna-800001. 4. The Deputy General Manager, (LPG) Bihar State Office, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Frazer Road, Patna-800001. 5. Senior Area Manager, Indane Area Office, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Shashi Bhawan, 1st Floor, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001. 6. Deputy Manager, Indane (LPG), Indane Area Office, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Shashi Bhawan, 1st Floor, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001. …. Respondents ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Akshay Bahadur Mathur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Sanat K. Mishra, Advocate. ------ 03/ 26.04.2011 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 30.11.2010 (Annexure 5), by which Senior Area Manager, Indane Area Office, Indian Oil Corporation (respondent no. 5) cancelled the LPG distributorship of the petitioner and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. From the averments made by learned counsel for the parties as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that an advertisement for the dealership of Rajiv Gandhi LPG Vitrak 2 (RGGLV) of Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to as `the Corporation’ for the sake of brevity) was published in the daily newspaper `Danik Jagran’ on 17.10.2009 (Annexure 1) for several locations including Pachrukhi (within the district of Siwan) at serial no. 247, which was fixed for scheduled caste category. In the said advertisement at Clause `Chha’, it was specifically mentioned that only those candidates should apply, who had land measuring at least 20 meters x 24 meters. 3. It further transpires from the record that the petitioner applied on 11.11.2009 and 23.11.2009 (Annexures 2 & B) in the prescribed form, in clause `9’ whereof it was mentioned that the land offered by the petitioner measured 24 meters x 20 meters. Thereafter, a final list of the applicants having been found eligible was prepared, in which the petitioner was found to be the only eligible candidate vide letter dated 23.04.2010 (Annexure 3). 4. However, on subsequent verification by the authorities of the Corporation, it was found that the land offered by the petitioner measured only 18 meters x 18 meters, which did not fulfil the required minimum criteria and hence letter dated 24.04.2010 was sent by the Corporation to the petitioner. In response to the said letter, the petitioner sent his reply dated 25.11.2010 (Annexure 5) to respondent-authorities informing that he now offers another land, which was subsequently purchased by him vide registered deed dated 02.11.2010 and was situated within the prescribed location, measuring more than the required 20 meters x 3 24 meters and hence claimed that he may be allotted the said dealership, which he can continue in the newly purchased land. 5. It transpires that by letter dated 30.11.2010 (Annexure 6), respondent-authorities cancelled the petitioner’s candidature for award of the L.P.G. distributorship as the land offered by the petitioner in his application was merely 18 meters x 18 meters and was not as per the requirement of the Corporation i.e. 20 meters x 24 meters. About one and a half months thereafter, the petitioner filed a fresh application dated 10.01.2011 (Annexure 7), in which he stated that he was the only eligible scheduled caste candidate and as per requirement he had subsequently purchased a land in the required location, which fulfilled the prescribed criteria and hence the L.P.G. dealership may be awarded to him. Finally by letter dated 20.01.2011 (Annexure 8), respondent-authorities informed the petitioner that subsequent purchase cannot be considered as on the date of the application the petitioner was required to have the land as per the advertisement. It was also argued by learned counsel for the respondents that by giving the area of the land in his application, which was admittedly wrong, the petitioner had played fraud upon the Corporation and hence he was not entitled to get the said L.P.G. dealership. 6. From the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it is not in dispute that the area of the land given by the petitioner in his application dated 23.11.2009 was wrong and was also not sufficient for the purpose of the L.P.G. 4 dealership. This aspect of the matter having been informed to the petitioner in the month of April, 2010, there was undue delay of more than six months when the petitioner purchased another piece of land on 02.11.2010 and informed the authorities of the Corporation on 25.11.2010. In the said circumstances, the authorities were quite justified in passing the impugned order and cancelling the L.P.G. distributorship of the petitioner. 7. Thus, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. However, if any fresh advertisement for the L.P.G. distributorship is made by the authorities concerned with respect to the same location, the petitioner will be at liberty to apply for the same offering the land which he had purchased on 02.11.2010, if it suffices the requirement as per the advertisement. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )