IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1182 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4863 of 2011 ====================================================== Mukesh Kumar Singh, S/o Prabhunath Singh, R/O Vill. + P.O.-Hasanpura, Distt.-Siwan. .... Appellant ....Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Petroleum and Natural Gas Deptt., New Delhi. 2. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Reg. Office, G-9 Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400051 (India) through its General Manager. 3. The Senior Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., First Floor, Shahi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna. .... Respondents.... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prabhakar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Raghib Ahsan(A.S.G) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3 03-11-2011 This Appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the order dated 6th May 2011 made by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No.4863 of 2011. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 17th October 2009, the appellant-writ petitioner applied for distributorship of L.P.G. cylinder under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak Scheme. Pursuant to his application, he was held qualified for draw for selection. Although he was selected, under communication dated 6th January 2011 his application was rejected on the premise that he was not suitable for the concerned distributorship. The reason Patna High Court LPA No.1182 of 2011 (3) dt.03-11-2011 2 / 2 2 quoted was that the land offered was not as per the advertised location at Village Hasanpura. The challenge to the said communication has failed before the learned single Judge. Therefore, the present Appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Jitendra Singh has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that after submitting all documents, the appellant was held qualified for draw for selection and when he qualified for selection, he was non-suited. He, however, admits that the appellant does not own any land in the concerned location Hasanpura. The land offered at Hasanpura was that of his father. According to the brochure, for such land the appellant was required to submit consent letter from his father which the appellant did not do. It is evident that the appellant did not qualify for distributorship as he failed to provide a piece of land of his ownership at the given location Hasanpura. Learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. No case for interference is made out. Appeal is dismissed in limine. B.Tiwary/Anjani/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)