IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13113 of 2010 NEELAM DEVI, W/0 late Arjun Jha, village and Post-Tetri, P.S. Naugachia, District- Bhagalpur….. petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, New Delhi. 2. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Limited through its Chairman- cum-Managing Director, Bharat Bhawan, 4 and 6 Karimbhaw Road, Belard Estate, Post Box No.688, Mumbami-400001. 3. LPG Distributor Selection Committee BPCL LPG Bottling Plant, P.O.Panisalahat, District- Uttar Dinajpur, West Bengal. 4. The Territory Manager (LPG) Raiganj 5. The Co-ordinator, Ranighat, L.P.G. Territory. 6. The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Kursela Branch. 7. The Branch Manager, P.N.B. Tetri Branch, New Delhi…. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Shivajee Pandey, Senior Advocate For the P.N.B.: Mr. Raj Kishore Srivastava, Advocate For Central Bank: Mr. Bimlendu Mishra,Advocate For BPCL: Mr. Madhuresh Prasad, Advocate. -------- 2. 25.8.2010 Heard learned counsels for the parties. The petitioner seeks a direction upon the authorities of the respondent Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. to appoint the petitioner as an L.P.G. Distributor at Kursela in P.M.P. category after quashing the letter dated 8.5.2010 issued by respondent No.5, by which the selection of the petitioner for appointment of L.P.G. Distributorship for the said location has been cancelled. The ground mentioned for cancellation is that in terms of clause 14.2 of the application form the amount mentioned in the application as - 2 - having been kept in deposit with the Bank has to be maintained for a minimum period of three months from the date of application or of interview whichever is earlier. However, in the case of the petitioner, it was found that in the application form an amount of Rs. 21,03,580.67/- was shown as having been kept with the Punjab National Bank and the Central Bank of India in Saving Bank Accounts, but on verification it was found that on the date of application, i.e. 19.11.2007, the total amount in the Saving Bank Account was to the tune of Rs.14,53,580/-only and during the period of three months from the date of application, i.e., on 19.2.2008, it was found to be Rs.5,45,018.67/-. It was thus found that the petitioner did not maintain the balance of Rs.21,03,580.67/- as declared in the application form and thus violated the terms and conditions of clause 14.2 of the application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no stipulation in the advertisement as to the amount that has to be kept in the Bank and further the petitioner is prepared to deposit and keep in the said two Saving Bank Accounts the - 3 - amount as declared in the application form for the necessary period and only on the said ground the selection of the petitioner should not be permitted to be cancelled. This Court does not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. The requirement of maintaining the amount in the Saving Bank Account is clearly stipulated in the terms and conditions of clause No.14.2 of the application form and thus the petitioner was required to abide by the same. The question is not whether there is any stipulation in the advertisement, rather the question is of making a truthful and correct declaration and abiding by the terms of clause 14.2 of the application. The petitioner having failed to do so, it was open to the authorities of the respondent Oil Company to have cancelled the selection of the petitioner for the L.P.G. Distributorship. The action of the authorities cannot be held to be arbitrary or unreasonable, as the petitioner was definitely aware of the stipulation which was clearly mentioned in the application form also. In the above circumstances, this Court - 4 - does not find any merit in the writ petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed. At this stage, it is submitted that the petitioner was the sole candidate pursuant to the earlier advertisement and thus if a fresh advertisement is issued, then he should not be debarred from participating and succeeding in the same after complying with the requirement laid down in the fresh advertisement. It is made clear that the dismissal of the writ petition does not disentitle the petitioner to apply again and for his candidature to be considered in accordance with law in terms of the fresh advertisement, if any. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )