IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10 of 2011 ALOK KUMAR, SON OF BASUKI NATH SHARMA, RESIDENT OF TOWN/VILLAGE TETARI (DANDARI), P.O. TETARI, BLOCK DANDARI, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI, BIHAR………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE MANAGER OF INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA. 2. AREA MANAGER (MARKETING DIVISION) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED (M.D.) INDANE AREA OFFICE (BEGUSARAI) P.O. BARAUNI OIL REFINERY, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI, PIN CODE 851114, BIHAR……………………………….RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Kali Das Chatterji, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amlesh Kumar Verma, Advocate. ----------- 05/ 20.01.2011 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 01.12.2010 (Annexure-6) issued under the signature of Area Manager (Marketing Division) Indane Area Office (respondent no.2) by which the candidature of petitioner for awarding Rajeev Gandhi Gramin L.P.G. Vitrak was cancelled and also for stay of the entire selection process for award of RGGLV at village Dandari under Begusarai district as a fresh draw is likely to be held in near future and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. It appears from Annexure-1 that advertisement was made inviting applications for Rajeev Gandhi Gramin L.P.G. Vitrak for several villages in which - 2 - Serial No.150 was with respect to the village Dandari in the district of Begusarai. The petitioner applied for the said Vitrak but his application was rejected by the authorities on the ground that he is neither the resident of village Dandari nor the land for godown offered by him was situated in village Dandari, rather he was a resident of village Tetari and the said land was situated in village Sohailpur. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently challenges the said impugned action claiming that though the document speaks of certain village but the object is to provide facilities to the rural people and hence the villages mentioned in the advertisement should include the lands situated in its vicinity. He further claims that the petitioner’s land of Sohailpur is 1.5 K.M. from Block Dandari and the village Dandari is situated within 2 K.M. from there and it is situated on the main pitch road. 4. From the facts and circumstances of this case, it is quite apparent that advertisement was made with respect the specific villages and the authorities are bound to strictly follow the said advertisement. Admittedly the land of the petitioner is not situated in village included in the said advertisement and hence the respondents authorities were quite justified in rejecting his application for the said village in which he has no land. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)