IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11321 of 2009 MOST.VEENA PANDEY, W/o- Late Sig Man Sita Sharan Pandey, Resident of Village- Nazirpur, Post Office- Nazirpur, P.S.- Rohika, District- Madhubani :------ Petitioner. Versus 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, Department of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shashtri Bhawan, New Delhi- 11007. 2. The General Manager-cum-Managing Director, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Bihar State Office, Shahi Bhawan, Exihibition Road, Patna-01. 3. The Sr. Area Manager, Sri D.N.Datta, Indane Area Office, Shahi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna -1 :--- Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner :- 1. Mr. R.K.Verma, Senior Advocate With 2. M/S Purushottam Jha and M.P.Jha, Advocates. ********* 4. 13.10.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “IOC”). 2. Petitioner is a War Widow. She had applied for grant of LPG dealership and was empanelled as a first candidate but her empanelment has been cancelled under order dated 5.6.2009, Annexure-8 issued by the Senior Area Manager, IOC, Marketing Division, Eastern Region, Patna observing that the applicant indicated in her application form that her bank deposit is Rs. 3,34,802.75/- but from the bank statement of her Savings Bank Account No. 105607 it appears that the deposit available on 19.11.2007, the date of application, was Rs. 304292.75/- it is thus evident that petitioner had withdrawn amount during the locking period. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the restriction not to withdraw the amount stated in the application form is provided in Clause 14.2 of the advertisement which is appended with a note which, inter alia, provides that the applicant has not to withdraw any amount from her bank account during the locking period but the note - 2 - does not provide for any consequence if an applicant chooses to withdraw a small amount for meeting day-to-day expenses. In the present case it is stated that on the date of application petitioner had withdrawn Rs. 5,000/- from her Savings Bank Account as she required the said amount for her medical treatment. In this regard it is further pointed out that in course of time the bank deposit became five lacs and odd as petitioner continued to receive the retiral dues of her late husband and appreciating such fact the authorities should not have cancelled her empanelment. 3. Counsel for the IOC states that the Oil Company is bound by the terms of the advertisement as also the note appended thereto and as Clause 14.2 restrained the applicants not to withdraw any amount which is in deposit petitioner ought not to have withdrawn even Rs. 5,000/- from her Savings Bank Account and if she has chosen to withdraw the amount, she has disqualified herself. According to him if lenient view is taken in the case of the petitioner that may tantamount to discriminating with others who appreciating such clause did not apply at all. Counsel for the IOC further submitted with reference to the averments made in the counter affidavit that from her application form it appears that on the date of application petitioner had Rs. 334802.75/- in deposit but from her bank statement appended with the counter affidavit it appears that on the date of application i.e. 19.11.2007 the deposit was Rs. 304292.75/- and she should explain the discrepancy between what has been stated in the application form and the amount actually available in her Savings - 3 - Bank Account. 4. Having heard counsel for the parties I am of the view that the petitioner should ventilate her grievance before the Secretary, Petroleum who is authorized to frame the guidelines on the basis of which the different clauses of the advertisement are incorporated as also before the higher authorities of the IOC, namely, the General Manager and the Deputy General Manager, IOC and they shall consider the same and if the authorities of the IOC are not inclined to consider her case they should forward her representation to the ministry. The Secretary of the Department of Petroleum as also the other respondents should consider the request of the petitioner in view of this order within a reasonable time, in any case within a period of thee months from the date of its receipt along with a copy of this order. Any decision in the matter shall be subject to the result of the representation of the petitioner. 5. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)