IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.20125 of 2010 Arun Kumar, S/o Sri Arjun Prasad, R/o Village-Ramgarhwa, P.O. and P.S.-Ramgarhwa, District- East Champaran, Motihari. ……. Petitioner. Versus 1. Indian Oil Corporation Limited through its General Manager, Patna. 2. Senior Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Ist Floor, Shahi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna. 3. Deputy Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Ist Floor, Shahi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna. … Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. Surendra Mishra, Advocate. Mr. Dineshwar Mishra, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Kali Das Chatterji, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Amlesh Kr.Verma, Advocate. ----------- 2. 14.12.2010 1. 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 15.11.2010 (Annexure-4) issued by the Senior Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Respondent no. 2) by which the candidature of the petitioner for awarding Rajiv Gandhi LPG Vitrak of Indian Oil Corporation Limited at Ramgarhwa within the district of East Champaran had been cancelled. 3. Admittedly, the said application was made by the petitioner for Plot No. 2055(2 kathas 5 dhurs) appertaining to Khata No. 334 of Thana No. 69 situated in Mouza Sakra, which was the self acquired land of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said village comes within the location of Ramgarhwa and hence the advertisement having been made for location of Ramgarhwa, his application was fit to be allowed, but 2 the same was cancelled by the aforesaid impugned order on the ground that the land shown for godown is outside Mauza Ramgarhwa and is situated in Mouza Sakra which according to him was wrong as after examination of facts the Revenue Authorities themselves found and reported that Ramgarhwa location included village Sakra. He further stated that there is no problem for delivery and distribution of the articles from the said land which is adjacent to village Ramgarhwa. 4. It is true that there are some reports of the Revenue Authorities that although the land of the petitioner is situated in village Sakra but it is within the location of Ramgarhwa. These reports cannot be relied upon as it is clearly against the advertisement published on the basis of which the petitioner had applied. From a bare perusal of the advertisement (Annexure-1) Sl. No. 209 shows that in Column 3 location was given as Ramgarhwa but in the said column after word ‘location’, words town/village have been mentioned in bracket which clearly shows that the location has been defined specifically as town or village in the said advertisement. Hence, the land according to the advertisement had to be situated within village/Mouza Ramgarhwa. But in the instant case the petitioner has sought to explain that although the said land is situated in Mouza Sakra but it is within the location of Ramgarhwa. This argument is not tenable in view of the specification of the word location given in the advertisement itself as town and village and hence, it is only Mouza of the village concerned which has to be seen and not a location in general term. 3 5. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly, dismissed. Sujit (S.N.Hussain, J.)