HSQH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. CORAIVS: Hon'ble Shri Sunii KumarSinha & Hon'bSe Shri Radhe Shvam SharmaJJ. WRIT APPEAL N0. 446/2011 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS ?-^ Madhuri Agarwal, D/o, Shri Ghasiram AGarwai, aged about 23 years, R/o Viilage & Post & Tahsil Dabhra, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.). VERSUS Bharat Petroieum Corporation Limited Through the Chairman/ Managing Director, Retaif Outiet. 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Baliard Estate, P.B. No. 688, Mumbai- 400001. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited through manager (A Government of India Enterprise) Ralpur LPG Territory Office, Shaheed Veer Narayan Singh Commercia! Complex, 1 Fioor, Nagar, Ghadi Chowk, Raipur (C.G.). Territory Manager (LPG) Bharat Petroieum Corporation Limited (A Government of india Enterprises) Raipur LPG, Territory Office, Shaheed Veer Narayan Singh Commerciai Compiex, 1 FIoor, Nagar Ghadi Chowk, Raipur (C.G.). APPEAL SECTSON 2(11 OF THE CHHATTiSGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DJVISJON BENCH) ACT. 2006 Mr. R.S. Patei, Advocate forthe appellant. Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawaf and Mr. Sudeep Agrawai, Advocates for the respondents on advance copy. 7" >L '^. II V WRIT APPEAL N0. 446/2011 SUNILKUEVIARSINHAJ. Heard. ORAL ORDER (28.09.2011) The appeliant/petitioner applled for LPG Dlstributorship at Sheorinarayan District Janjgir Champa on the advertisement dated 22.04.2011. Admittediy, the appiication was made on 23.05.2011. The candidature of the appeliant was rejected by the respondents on two counts, (i) the appeilant did not have liquid fund of Rs. 10,000,00/-, (ii) the land for showroom is not in the advertised location. The appeiiant chalienged the above decision before the Singie Judge by fiiing W.P.(C) No. 5109/2011. The learned Single Judge dlsmissed the writ petition on both the counts i.e. the appeliant was not having liqujd funds of Rs. 10,00,000/- on the date of application and the proposed showroom was aiso not in the advertised location. Mr. R.S. Patel, learned counsel for fhe appeilant submlts that appeliant had balanc&of Rs. 12,00,000/- in her account on 08.08.201 1. Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counse! for the respondents, drew our attention towards Clause 3 of the advertisement, which says that the essential quatifications for the candidate Is mentioned In the brochure which was required to be downloaded from the website of the respondent or purchased by making payment of Rs. 50/-. He shows the copy of the brochure to the Court which says that the candldate rnust have minimum totai amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- for Urban market and Rs. 10,00,000/- for Urban-Rural & Rural Markets respectiveiy as on the date of appSlcation. The proposed LPG out!et of Sheorinarayan is classified as Urban-Rural as shown in the advertisement. Admittedly, the baiance of Rs. 12,00,000/- came in the account of appellant on 08.08.2011 and not on 23.05.2011 i.e. on the date of fiiing of the appjication. This WRiT APPEAL N0. 446/2011 ^° shows that the appeliant was not having this very qualification, which was required for candldate to get LPG Djstributorship. On due consideratlon ofthe entire submissions made by iearned counsel for the parties, on the above grounds, we do not find any Infirmity or ilIegaSity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeaE, therefore, is iiable to be dismissed and is hereby dismlssed summariiy. 's'. Sd/- Sunjl Kumar Sinha Judge Rahul- Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge