IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8828 of 2010 ASGAR ALI ANSARI, son of late Faize Alam Ansari alias Faize Alam, resident of village – Bucheaya – Sidhwalia, P.S. Sidhwalia, District – Gopalganj. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Department of Petroleum, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. 2. The Director Marketing, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, G-9, Ali Yawar Jung Marg, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051. 3. The Senior Area Manager, Indane Area Office, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (Bihar), Shahi Bhawan, 1st Floor, Exhibition Road, Patna. With CWJC No.8840 of 2010 SHALEHA KHATOON, wife of Ismail Ansari, resident of village – Buchiya Sidhwaliya, P.S. Sidhwaliya, District – Gopalganj. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Department of Petroleum, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. 2. The Director Marketing, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, G-9, Ali Yawar Jung Marg, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051. 3. The Senior Area Manager, Indane Area Office, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (Bihar), Shahi Bhawan, 1st Floor, Exhibition Road, Patna. ----------- For the petitioners : M/S. Vasant Kumar Choudhary, Sr. Advocate. For the Oil Corporation : Mr. K D Chatterji. For the Union of India : Mr. Abu Haider. ------- 02. 19.05.2010 Since identical questions of fact are involved in both the writ applications, they are being disposed of by this common order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation. Submissions on behalf of the petitioners is that illegally and irrationally the applications of the petitioners for inclusion in the proceeding for draw for award of LPG 2 Distributorship by the respondent-Oil Corporation have been rejected without taking into consideration the ground reality. Contention of the senior counsel is that village Sidhwalia by itself does not have any infrastructure or recognition as such. The post office, railway station and other facilities including block are situated in village Bucheaya but the insistence of the respondent-Corporation not to consider the applications of the petitioners because they belong to Bucheaya would be doing injustice to them. The advertisement contained in Annexure-1 talks in terms of the locations. The dealership is to be awarded in rural areas of what is known as Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Bitarak (distributorship). It is not denied that there is a village which has its identity known as Sindhwalia. Above fact is neither denied nor can be denied in face of Annexure-6, which is a document of the petitioners. If Respondent – Oil corporation wants to appoint a dealer with name of village which has its identity, then the same cannot be expanded by giving a meaning or by resorting to revenue designation or by railway station or post- office where ever they may be located. The Court does not feel that the reason for rejection is irrational. In fact, it is in conformity with the advertisement. The effort on the part of the petitioners is to somehow hop on to the selection process even though their 3 eligibility by way of residence is not available. Both the writ applications are dismissed for the reasons above. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J )