ssp 1 WP 6723 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6723 of 2010 Archana Dinkar Nale .....Petitioner versus Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Atul A. Kere h/f Mr.Milind Deshmukh, for the petitioner. Mr.Nikhil M. Agarwal h/f Mr.M.D.Siodia i/by Rustamji & Ginwala, for the respondents. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE: 10th MARCH, 2011. P.C. : 1. By way of this petition, petitioner has prayed for appropriate writ directions and order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the letter dated 10-07-2010, by which she was informed that she is not eligible to get the dealership of Rajiv Gandhi LPG Vitrak. 2. The petition has been resisted by the respondents by filing an affidavit-in-reply, wherein it is stated that the petitioner is not eligible to get the said LPG dealership as per the guidelines fixed and therefore, her case was not considered when the draw took place on 18-08-2010. One Abhay Dynaneshwar Todkar was selected and Letter of Intent was issued to him on 07th December, 2010. It is submitted that the said person ssp 2 WP 6723 of 2010 was coming within the guidelines as he is the son of deceased soldier. It is also stated in the affidavit that as per Rajiv Gandhi Rural LPG Distributors, the candidates should have land in his/her own name or in the name of family as per the definition of family unit. The petitioner was not having land in her name or in the name of her family as per the definition of family units and hence, her application was not considered. 3. Since the allotment made in favour of other person has not been challenged and in view of the affidavit-in-reply, it is crystal clear that the petitioner was not eligible to get the dealership of LPG, no fault can be found with the decision taken by the respondents in any manner in not considering the application of the petitioner. However, if in future, if any fresh advertisement is given and the petitioner applies for the same, her fresh candidature may be considered in accordance with law and appropriate decision may be taken on merits on such candidature of the petitioner. 4. In view of what is stated above, writ petition is rejected. ( A.A.SAYED, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )