IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1536 of 2009 Mrs. Manika Kaliyar, W/O Sri Neeraj Kumar Kaliyar, R/O E-104, Happy Home Apartment, Plot NO. 12-A, Sector 7 Dwarka, New Delhi. …. Petitioner Versus 1. Territory Manager, Bharat petroleum Corporation Ltd. Roorkee L.P.G. Territory, U.P.S.I.D.C. Area Roorkee Landhaura, District Haridwar. 2. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., A Government of India Enterprises, 4/6 Churrimbhoy Road Ballard East Mumbai, through its Chairman Cum Managing Director. …. Respondents. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mrs. Indu Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. J.C. Belwal, Advocate, counsel for the respondents. Date April 19, 2010. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J, Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28-8-2009 passed by respondent no. 2 annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the petition, whereby the selection of distributorship candidature of the petitioner at Jhandi Chaur in district Pauri was cancelled on the ground that the land offered by the petitioner for godown falls in Uttar Pradesh and was not found suitable on the said ground. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play. The order has been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before rejecting her candidature for L.P.G. distributorship after holding interview. On behalf of the respondents, counter affidavit has been filed. It is stated in para 10 inter alia that the petitioner had not disclosed the fact in her application that the land is situated within the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is further stated in para 13 that the land offered for godown is not within the trading area for which the applications were invited. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to clause 13.1 of the advertisement which reads as under:- “13.1 GODOWN FOR STORAGE OF FIELD LPG CYLINDERS. Godown approved by Chief Controller of Explosives is required for storage of filled cylinders. Godown/land for construction of Godown will be suitable, if it is located within 15 kms or in the area of operation (trading area) of the advertised location, freely accessible through all weather motorable approach road. The plot should be plaint, in one contiguous lot, free from overhead power transmission or telephone lines. Pipelines/Canals/Drainage/Nallahs/Public Roads should not pass through the plot. Minimum Dimensions of plot: 27mX26.15m” Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that so far as the construction of godown is concerned, as per condition clause 13.1 the land is required to be located within 15 kms. or in the area of operation (trading area) of the advertised location, as detailed in clause 13.1. There is no mention that the land should fall within any particular territory or the State. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Bharat Petroleum has contended that the godown as offered by the petitioner is not located within the trading area of the LPG distributorship. Learned counsel further submitted that the criteria for selection has been mentioned in condition no. 11 and 14 of the advertisement. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that in the application form also, the petitioner did not mention the name of the State. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in application form in column no. 13A1, the only requirement was “Do you have a suitable land at or within 15 km from the advertised location for LPG godown or LPG godown readily available Owned/Leased (15 yrs minimum) in your own name or in the name of any member of your ‘Family Unit’ and the petitioner had mentioned YES in answer thereof. According to the petitioner, the proposed land of the petitioner for construction of godown is situated about 4 kms. away the LPG show-room. The requirement of showroom is mentioned in clause 13.2 which says that ‘Showroom as per the standard layout can be constructed in a shop/land located in the area of operation (trading area) of the advertised local for LPG distributorship and should be easily accessible to general public through a suitable approach road.” By a perusal of the advertisement, the counter version and rejoinder affidavit as also the application form submitted by the petitioner, it reveals that the condition was specifically mentioned for showroom, which shall be located in the area of operation (trading area) only, but so far as the godown is concerned, there is no mention that godown would be situated within the trading area. The condition provides that the godown would be within 15 kms. from the showroom. Since the selection of distributorship candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the land for godown is situated in Uttar Pradesh and that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to her, therefore, in view of the fact that there is no mention in the advertisement condition no. 13.1 that the godown would be within trading area alone, the impugned order dated 20-8-2009 (Annexure-3 to the petition) thereby rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for selection of LPG distributorship, cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set aside. Liberty is given to the respondents that if the respondent-authority feels difficulty in supplying the cylinders to the godown, which is situated in other State, the respondent- authority shall give alternative offer to the petitioner for making the land for godown available within the trading area and if such offer is given to the petitioner, the petitioner shall make available other suitable land within trading area within a period of four weeks from the date of offer given to the petitioner. If such land is made available within the trading area for construction of godown, the same would be treated as satisfaction of condition clause No. 13.1 of the advertisement. With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. Costs easy. (B.S. Verma, J.) RCP