IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19846 of 2010 SATYA NARAYAN SAH, SON OF RAM BRIKSH SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PARSAUNI KHIRODHAR, P.S. PARSAUNI, DISTRICT SITAMARHI………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GASES, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., LOK NAYAK JAI PRAKASH BHAWAN, 5TH FLOOR, DAK BUNGLOW CHOWK, PATNA-1. 3. THE DY. MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., LOK NAYAK JAI PRAKASH BHAWAN, 5TH FLOOR , DAK BUNGLOW CHOWK, PATNA-1. 4. SR. AREA MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. 1ST FLOOR, SHASTRI BHAWAN, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA-1………………………..RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : Mr. Mani Bhushan Kumar, Advocate. For the IOCL : Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S. Kumar Mishra, Advocate. ----------- 06/ 14.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 20.08.2010 (Annexure-1) passed by Senior Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (respondent no.4) by which the representation of petitioner for his appointment as distributor under Rajeev Gandhi L.P.G. Distribution Plan was rejected and also for directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as a distributor under the said scheme for village Parsauni in the district of Sitamarhi. It is not in dispute that an advertisement inviting applications for dealership of various places was published on 17.10.2009 in response of which the petitioner filed 2 his application on 26.11.2009 claiming himself to be of ‘CC’ Category, but subsequently by letter dated 11.01.2010 (Annexure-5) the respondents informed the petitioner that he was not found eligible as he did not belong to the Category for which distributorship was reserved, since no DGR nomination was submitted and he did not have land in his name (or Family Unit). It was also noted that he can submit his representation by 01.02.2010. Accordingly, a representation (Annexure-6) was filed by the petitioner before the authority but no date is given in the said representation. When no order was passed on the said representation, the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No.10345 of 2010 which was disposed of by a Bench of this court on 09.07.2010 with a direction to the competent authority of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited to consider and dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner by a speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of that order. Accordingly, the said representation was considered by the said authority and it was dismissed vide order dated 20.08.2010 (Annexure-1). From the facts and circumstances of this case, it is quite apparent that the land in question was acquired and possessed by Ram Briksh Sah father of the petitioner, but he did not come under the definition of ‘Family Unit’ of the petitioner as Point no.3 of the advertisement provided that family would 3 contain only spouse and unmarried children. A sale deed has been produced by the petitioner dated 29.01.2010 (Annexure-6 series) but that was much after the date of representation dated 26.11.2009 although the relevant date for consideration of such matter can only be the date of advertisement or the date of filing of the application if no cut off date is provided in the advertisement. It is also apparent that since the petitioner is claiming on the basis of being an ex-serviceman, a certificate from the Director General of Re-Settlement (DGR), Ministry of Defence, Government of India was required for the purpose of the scheme in question, but no such certificate was filed by the petitioner before the authority concerned. Hence, authorities of the Corporation were quite justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)