IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 22280 of 2010 Date of decision November 8 , 2011 Suman Lata ....... Petitioner Versus Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., and another ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The petitioner makes a challenge to the letter of rejection of the petitioner's candidature for being considered for allotment of LPG dealership. Amongst the grounds, the first objection was the actual site dimensions necessary for a godown ought not to have been less than 27 m x 26.15 m as per the advertisement. The petitioner had stated in the application that he had a property 30 m x 28 m. On physical verification it was found that the actual site measurement was only 15.1 x 13.4 m. The petitioner has not contested the correctness of the measurement as secured in the physical verification but has contended in the writ petition that there was no such minimum requirement mentioned in the advertisement. It is further contended by the petitioner that he is willing to offer a property of appropriate size. 2. Counsel for the Corporation points out that the petitioner was awarded 18 marks on the assumption that the measurement as given in the application was true but it turned out on physical verification that the property do not satisfy the minimum requirement and the marks awarded to the petitioner itself were therefore wrong. Counsel also points out that as per the norms released for allotment, it is clearly spelt out in clause 14 that in the event of any variance in the details submitted in the application form, or found not suitable for construction, then the applicant shall not be permitted to offer any alternate site for godown. The petitioner's contention would require to be rejected on the singular issue of not satisfying the minimum requirement and shown to be guilty of misstatement of fact regarding the size of the property which he claimed to his own. The rejection was therefore appropriate and I am not prepared to examine the other grounds stated by the Corporation for rejection, for, the first ground itself is sufficient to sustain their decision. 3. The writ petition is consequently, dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 8, 2011 archana