IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13124 of 2010 SURAJ JAISWAL @ SURAJ KUMAR JAISWAL S/O SHRI NIRMAL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, R/O MO.- GOURIPUR, P.S.- SINGHESHWAR, DISTRICT- MADHEPURA……….PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. (HPCL) A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA COMPANY, REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 17, JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020 THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN 2. THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. (HPCL), PATNA LPG REGION, 6TH FLOOR, LOK NAYAK JAI PRAKASH BHAVAN, DAK BUNGLOW CHOWK, PATNA………..RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner :Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Advocate. For the respondents :Dr. Pankaj, Advocate. ----------- 04/ 02.05.2011 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 17.07.2010 (Annexure-6) by which the authorities had rejected the candidature of the petitioner for award of LPG dealership under Rajeev Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak Scheme at location Singheshwar in the district of Madhepura on the ground that as per common eligibility criteria under Clause no.4 he was not a resident of the advertised location. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that advertisement dated 17.10.2009 was published in daily news paper of Patna, namely “Hindustan” inviting applications for grant of distributorship of LPG under Rajeev Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak Scheme for many locations in the State of Bihar, including the location Singheshwar in the district of Madhepura - 2 - which was at serial no.93. He also refers to Clause-3 (Kha) of the said advertisement. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that he filed his application as a candidate for award of distributorship under Rajeev Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak Scheme for location Singheshwar within time along with several documents to show that he was a resident of Singheshwar, including the Character Certificate dated 22.11.2009 issued by Anchal Adhikari, Income Certificate dated 28.05.2010 issued by Anchal Adhikari, Residential Certificate dated 21.11.2009 issued by Block Development Officer, Sale Deed dated 25.10.1983 and Rent Receipt dated 07.07.2009 (Annexure-2 series), all of which clearly showed that the petitioner was the resident of location Singheshwar. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further avers that the respondents have not questioned the validity and genuineness of the aforesaid documents nor they could show that Gauripur was not part of Singheshwar. In the said circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that there can be no valid and legal reason for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for the said dealership. 6. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents contests the claim of the petitioner and presses the statements and annexures of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and submits that the respondent concerned was quite justified in issuing the impugned letter, as the petitioner did - 3 - not fulfill the criteria fixed for the required location, namely Singheshwar in view of the fact that village Gauripur was not a part of village Singheshwar. 7. From the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that advertisement dated 17.10.2009 was made with respect to locations and the locations were specified as towns/villages in the third column thereof. In the said circumstances, locations can be pinpointed only to towns and villages and not to Blocks, Circles, Sub-Divisions, Post Office and Police Station, etc. Clause-3 (Kha) of the said advertisement also clarified that the applicants should be the residents of town/village mentioned in the location column of the advertisement. 8. From the certificates of the authorities produced by the petitioner as Annexure-2 series, it is quite apparent that no doubt Singheshwar is mentioned therein as Post Office, Police Station, Circle or Block respectively, but nowhere it is mentioned as a village. On the other hand, the said documents themselves show the petitioner to be resident of Gram/Mohalla-Gauripur, whereas the sale deed produced by the petitioner clearly shows that he was resident of village Gauripur. The government receipts also show the name of Gauripur in the second column which is for mauza i.e. village whereas the first column is with respect to circle and in that column Singheshwar is mentioned. 9. Furthermore, the Standard Residents Certificate produced by the respondents which is part of Annexure-B series - 4 - of their counter affidavit clearly shows the petitioner to be resident of village Gauripur. In any Block, Circle, Police Station and Post Office etc. there can be several villages, hence in Circle- Singheshwar there may be several villages including Gauripur and Singheshwar. Hence the requirement as per the advertisement being village Singheshwar, there was no occasion for the authorities to entertain any application from persons who were residents of village Gauripur and not the resident of village Singheshwar. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the authorities concerned were quite justified in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner vide the impugned letter dated 17.07.2010 (Annexure-6). Hence, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)