THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.10143 of 2010 ORDER: A notification was published on 01-10-2007 by M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, the 1st respondent herein, inviting applications for appointment of Distributors of LPG at various locations, including the one, at Isnapur of Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. The petitioner, the 5th respondent and several others submitted their applications. An applicant was required to provide place for establishment of a godown as well as a showroom. The area of operation of the distributorship is said to be 15 K.M., from Isnapur. The petitioner purchased an extent of 130 sq.yards of land in Muthangi Village which immediately abuts Isnapur. The site for godown was acquired at a different place. The 5th respondent raised an objection as to the validity of the application of the petitioner on the ground that the place chosen by him for showroom is outside Isnapur village. The 4th respondent herein sent a reply dated 30-09-2008 to the 5th respondent, stating that his complaint, vis-à-vis the petitioner herein is closed. W.P.No.26751 of 2008 was filed by the 5th respondent. After hearing both the parties, the writ petition was disposed of on 03-12-2009, directing that the respondents 1 to 3 herein shall take into account the objection raised by the 5th respondent, vis-à-vis the petitioner before a final decision is taken. They were also directed to give an opportunity of being heard to the 5th respondent, if the situation warrants. After evaluation, the respondents 1 to 4 placed the petitioner at Sl.No.1 and 5th respondent at Sl.No.2. The 4th respondent passed an order dated 22-02-2010, observing that the place selected by the petitioner at Muthangi Village does not accord with the notified location, viz., Isnapur, and thereby his candidature is cancelled. The petitioner challenges the same. He contends that whether it is the notification or in the brochure issued by the Company, the showroom is required to be established at “location” and not in a specific village or town. He submits that, when the marketing area is spread over in a radius of 15 K.M., from Isnapur, no objection can be taken to the establishment of showroom at the boundary of that village. Separate counter-affidavits are filed by the respondents 1 to 4, on the one hand, and respondent No.5, on the other hand. They contend that though it is open for a dealer to establish the godown, at any place, within the marketing area, the showroom is required to be in the ‘location’, which according to them, is the village or town, mentioned in the notification. Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent has framed guidelines, in the context of selection of distributors, and that the selection is with reference to ‘location’, and not any particular village or town. He contends that the word “location” assumes significance, when the area of operation transcends the boundaries of the village and town. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the various clauses in the brochure issued by the 1st respondent, as well as the entries in the application. Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4, submits that the place chosen by the petitioner for establishing the showroom does not accord with the requirement under the notification. He states that the very fact that different requirements are mentioned for the establishment of godown, on the one hand, and the showroom, on the other hand, discloses that the latter is required to be, at a central place in the location concerned. He submits that, admittedly, the place purchased by the petitioner is outside the limits of Isnapur village, and that no exception can be taken to the impugned proceedings. Sri P. Kesava Rao, learned counsel for the 5th respondent, submits that his client has been raising objection to the application submitted by the petitioner herein from the inception, so much so, that he approached this Court by filing a writ petition. He contends that Isnapur is not a Mandal headquarter, and when dealership is proposed to be established with reference to that village, may be with an extended marketing area, the showroom is required to be in that village alone. He submits that whether one goes by the contents of the brochure and other material, or views the matter from common parlance, the place chosen by the petitioner for establishment of godown is not suitable. This is the second writ petition filed in relation to the selection of dealer, for distribution of LPG, for Isnapur “location”. It appears that the actual competition is between the petitioner and the 5th respondent, and that the other applicants are not in the reckoning. At the initial stage itself, the 5th respondent approached this Court by filing writ petition No.26751 of 2008, feeling aggrieved by the reply given by the 4th respondent, about the objection raised by him. The writ petition was disposed of, directing that the objection raised by the 5th respondent shall be considered, while taking a final decision. Ultimately, that objection was sustained through the proceedings, that are challenged in this writ petition. The marketing area of the distributorship at Isnapur covers the radius of 15 K.M. from Isnapur village. Item 13-A of the application deals with the location and other particulars of godown, for storage of LPG cylinders. The requirement is that, the land for construction of godown must be within 15 K.M. from the notified “location for LPG”. The petitioner acquired the land in Isnapur town itself, through a sale deed dated 18-10-2007, and furnished the particulars thereof. Clause 13-B deals with the showroom for LPG distributorship. The requirement is mentioned as under: “Show room should be located in the location notified, and should have suitable approach road”. The word “location” is not defined with any precision. The information furnished in the notification is a bit vague, on this aspect. Ultimately, much would depend upon the interpretation, that has to be placed upon the word “location”. The petitioner purchased a plot of 130 sq.yards at Muthangi Village, which is abutting the boundary of Isnapur, for the purpose of establishing the showroom. If that is treated as suitable, he is entitled to be selected as dealer, since he was placed at Sl.No.1, after evaluation. On an objection raised by the 5th respondent, the 4th respondent took the view that the place acquired by the petitioner is not within the location. Whenever an agency or individual intends to refer to any place, they are free to indicate it by using the proper noun. Such references may include a particular country, state, district, village, colony, or in a given case, a particular house. If the intention is to insist that something must exist in a specified town or village, the inescapable conclusion would be, that the establishment must be within the boundaries, identified for the town or village, as the case may be. There would not be any scope to interpret the words, in a different way. Where, however, the place is indicated by using a common noun, like location, different approach is warranted. It does not connote any specific or particular area, like a specific town or village. It only signifies the importance of being around the named village or town. It may be treated as part of “location”, in the larger context. Obviously, by realizing that it may not be always possible to locate an office or showroom within the local limits of village or town, the 1st respondent has chosen the word “location”. In the context of construction of godowns, the Food Corporation of India adopts the same expression. In such cases, what needs to be seen is whether the place chosen is nearby local body, named in the notification, than to insist that it should be within the definite limits. Identical issue arose before this Court in W.P.No.30 of 2011, which was disposed of on 31-01-2011. That was in relation to the construction of godowns for Food Corporation of India. This Court observed, “…The use of the word ‘location’ in the tender notice has its own significance. It does not signify the limits of any local body or revenue village. It is almost elastic, and can be stretched, beyond a point, to cover the areas, which otherwise do not form part of the place, mentioned as location. The effort appears to be, to broadly indicate the area, where the godowns are to be constructed...” Totally different view could have been taken, in case the sale of cylinders by the selected dealer was confined to the customers in Isnapur village proper. It has already been mentioned that the marketing area is in a radius of 15 K.M. from Isnapur. The mere fact that the place for construction of showroom is selected at a place, which immediately abuts the limits of Isnapur revenue village, cannot be treated as a factor to disqualify the petitioner. Further, the petitioner acquired site for construction of godown, within the limits of the village. It would not have been difficulty to acquire a smaller place in the village for showroom. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.29-03-2011. KO