IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5340 of 2011 Jagjit Kumar Anand, son of Shri Raghunandan Yadav, resident of village Banma, Post Office Itahari, P.S. Salakhua, Town and District Saharsa …Petitioner Versus 1. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, a Government of India Enterprises, having its registered office at 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbhai-400020 through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director 2. The Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, (LPG Region), 6th Floor, Lok Nayak Jaiprakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Saharsa 4. The Circle Officer, Banma Itahari, Saharsa … Respondents ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kejriwal, Advocate For the H.P.C.L : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Subesh Sharma, A.C. to G.P.16 --------- 10/ 08.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging letter dated 28.01.2011 (Annexure 3), by which respondent no.2-Sr. Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited ( hereinafter referred to as `the Corporation’ for the sake of brevity) rejected/cancelled the candidature of the petitioner for award of distributorship of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (hereinafter referred to as `LPG’ for the sake of brevity) under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak Scheme (hereinafter referred to as `the Scheme’ for the sake of brevity ); and also challenging the fresh advertisement issued by the respondents and published in the newspaper dated 28.02.2011 (Annexure 5) for award of distributorship of LPG in the same locality; and for directing respondent-authorities to award the 2 aforesaid distributorship of LPG for the area concerned in favour of the petitioner as per the earlier advertisement published in the newspaper on 17.10.2009 (Annexure 1) as well as for other ancillary reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that advertisement dated 17.10.2009 (Annexure 1) was published in the newspaper at the instance of the Corporation inviting applications from intending parties for award of dealership of LPG under the Scheme for several locations including the location Banma Itahari, listed at serial no. 124 of the said advertisement. The petitioner was one of the applicants for the said location and letter dated 08.05.2010 (Annexure 2) was issued by respondent no.2 informing the petitioner that he had qualified for draw for selection of distributorship of LPG. It is stated that, thereafter, letter dated 28.01.2011 (Annexure 3) was issued by respondent no.2 informing the petitioner that his application for the award of distributorship of LPG had been rejected/cancelled on the ground that his proposed land for LPG godown was not situated in the advertised location. 4. Against the said order, the petitioner filed objection dated 11.02.2011 (Annexure 4) before respondent no.2 clearly mentioning that Banma Itahari is a Block, in which Mauza/village Itahari is situated and within the said village Tola Banma is situated and the land offered by him is situated in Tola Banma, which is within Mauza Itahari and also within Block Banma Itahari. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner produced 3 a certificate of the Circle Officer, Banma Itahari dated 02.02.2011 (Annexure 7). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the said objection of the petitioner was not disposed of, but in the meantime respondent-authorities got the other advertisement published in the newspaper dated 28.02.2011 (Annexure 5) for the same purpose with respect to several locations including the location (village/town) Banma Itahari, Itahari at serial no. 110. He also submits that the said advertisement is, thus, absolutely perverse as there was no occasion for issuing a fresh advertisement for the said location when the petitioner’s application/objection was already pending with respect to the said location and the petitioner had been able to fully prove that he was resident of the said location and had offered the land situated in the same location i.e. Tola Banma in village Itahari. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the objection of the petitioner was rejected by the authorities as the petitioner is not a resident of village Itahari, which is fully proved by the standard residence certificate, income tax certificate of the petitioner as well as land ownership and valuation certification, which are attached as Annexure `B’ series to the supplementary counter affidavit at pages 18,19 and 20 thereof, which shows that the petitioner is resident of village Banma under Post Offfice Itahari. Hence he submits that the petitioner is neither a 4 resident of village Itahari nor there is any revenue village in the name of Banma Itahari and, thus, the authorities were quite justified in rejecting his claim and issuing a fresh advertisement for the said location. 7. Thus it is an admitted fact that there is no revenue village by the name of Banma Itahari, which is, in fact, a Block. It is also an admitted fact that in the said Block, Itahari is a revenue village and hence Banma cannot be said to be revenue village, rather it is a Tola and a part of revenue village Itahari. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced a certificate issued by the Circle Officer, Banma Itahari, District Saharsa dated 07.02.2011 (Annexure 7), which clearly shows that the Block is Banma Itahari and in the said Block, revenue village Itahari is situated and within that village Banma Tola is situated and the land offered by the petitioner is situated within the said Tola of the said village. Furthermore the letter of the Corporation dated 08.05.2010 (Annexure 2) shows that the petitioner is resident of Banma Tola of village Itahari and there is no document at all to disprove the said fact, rather standard resident certificate, income certificate as well as land ownership and valuation certificate clearly show that the petitioner is a resident of Banma, which is, admittedly, a Tola of Mauza Itahari. 9. In the said circumstances, the assumption of respondent-authorities in their letter dated 28.01.2011 (Annexure 3) that the petitioner’s proposed land for LPG godown was not situated 5 in the advertised location is absolutely wrong and misconceived and, accordingly, the said order (Annexure 3) is hereby quashed. 10. So far location is concerned, it has to be either a town or a village as is clear from the top of the column in both the advertisements, but in the first advertisement dated 17.10.2009 (Annexure 1) the advertised location (village/town) was prescribed as Banma Itahari, although admittedly, there is no village or town by the name of Banma Itahari, hence the said advertisement with respect to the said location was clearly vitiated and the authorities were quite justified in issuing the second advertisement dated 28.02.2011(Annexure 5) clarifying the said location (village/town) as Banma Itahari, Itahari. Hence the petitioner’s challenge to the said second advertisement fails. 11. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also because much time has elapsed during the pendency of this writ petition since March, 2011 and the petitioner could not file his application in response to the second advertisement dated 28.2.2011, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file an application with respect to the said location in view of the subsequent advertisement. If such an application is filed by the petitioner within fifteen days from today, the authorities concerned will consider it in accordance with law along with other applications ignoring the delay caused in the filing of the said application due to pendency of the instant writ petition. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. ) 6