IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.304 of 2011 ABHA RANI SHAIL, WIFE OF SRI ANIL KUMAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE+P.O.+P.S. SURYAPURA, DISTRICT ROHTAS……………….PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION THROUGH ITS EASTERN REGION, 1ST FLOOR, SAHI BHAWAN, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, EASTERN REGION, 1ST FLOOR, SAHI BHAWAN, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA. 3. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, EASTERN REGION, 1ST FLOOR, SAHI BHAWAN, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA. 4. SENIOR AREA MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, MARKETING DIVISION, EASTERN REGION, 1ST FLOOR, SAHI BHAWAN, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA…………………RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : Mr. Anshuman, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Kali Das Chatterji, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amlesh Kr. Verma, Advocate. ----------- 04/ 18.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Corporation and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging letter dated 20.08.2010 (Annexure-6) by which the authorities of the Corporation rejected petitioner’s application for Rajeev Gandhi Rural L.P.G. Distributor Scheme at location Suryapura in the district of Rohtas. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an advertisement was made by the respondents authorities on 17.10.2009 (Annexure-2) for L.P.G. Distributor Scheme at several places, including village Suryapura in the district of Rohtas and in response the petitioner filed her application, but vide letter dated 26.03.2010 (Annexure-7) the authorities of the Corporation 2 informed the petitioner that her candidature was not found to be eligible for the said purpose, as she was not a resident of the advertised location and she did not have any land at the advertised location and accordingly a representation in that regard was directed to be filed. The petitioner filed her application on 16.04.2010 (Annexure-8) stating that she had a residential certificate (Annexure-1) which showed that she was a resident of Suryapura and petitioner’s mother-in-law executed and registered deed of lease of the land of the village concerned in the name of the petitioner and hence the petitioner’s candidature was quite justified and she was eligible for the dealership in question. It is also stated that without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case the respondents authorities rejected petitioner’s application and informed the petitioner vide letter dated 20.08.2010 (Annexure-6). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of a Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.07.2010 (Annexure-5) passed in C.W.J.C. No.10310 of 2010. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. From the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and materials on record, it is quite apparent that the advertisement (Annexure-2) was issued with respect to several villages, including village Suryapura in the district of Rohtas. Although the petitioner has claimed that Suryapura is a big village 3 and village Barun is part of village Suryapura as the Block, Thana and Panchayat are the same situated in village Barun, but from the petitioner’s representation itself it is quite apparent that there are two villages, namely Suryapura and Barun and hence one village cannot be legally assumed to be a part of another big village. So far the question of Block, Thana and Panchayat is concerned, one Block, Thana or Panchayat can include several villages and on that ground it cannot be assumed that village Barun is part of village Suryapura. So far the residential certificate is concerned, it is also not of village Suryapura rather it is with respect to village Barun which is in Suryapura Panchayat and the lease deed (Annexure-9) executed by the mother-in-law of the petitioner is also with respect to the land of village Barun. Furthermore, from the certificate of Anchal Adhikari, Suryapura dated 10.04.2010 (Annexure-3) it is also apparent that the land in question which is claimed by the petitioner is far away from village Suryapura. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is quite apparent that the petitioner has not been able to prove that either she was a resident of village Suryapura or she had land in the said village. Hence this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the authorities concerned. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)