IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17100 of 2010 Ajay Kumar Prasad son of Sri Nathuni Prasad, resident of Village- Majhar, P.O.-Sapahi, P.S.Turkaulia, District-East Champaran. ........Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India Ministry of Petroleum through Its Secretary, New Delhi. 2. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation limited, Jamshed Ji Tata Road, Mumbai-400020, through its Managing Director. 3. Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Patna Region, 6th Floor, Loknayak Bhawan Dak Bungla Chowk, Patna- 800001. ..........Respondents ---------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Sunil Kumar no. III, Adv. For H.P.C.L. :- Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Singh, Adv. 07 26.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging letter dated 27.08.2010, issued by the Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Patna (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’ for the shake of brevity) to the petitioner cancelling his selection with regard to the award of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin L.P.G. Vitrak (hereinafter referred to as ‘the RGGLV’ for the shake of brevity) at location Turkaulia within the District of East Champaran, merely on the basis of field verification, without examining the documents supplied by the petitioner, which were required by the authorities. 3. I.A. No. 5529 of 2011 has been filed by the petitioner for stay of any subsequent draw by the authorities concerned. - 2 - 4. It is quite apparent that an advertisement was published on 17.10.2009 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit) by the authorities inviting applications for issuance of RGGLV in various revenue villages of the State including Village Turkaulia in the District of East Champaran, which was at serial no. 113. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that several applicants for the said location under open category including the petitioner applied and subsequently the authorities accepted the application of the petitioner dated 27.11.2009 (Annexure-9) along with demand draft and issued letter dated 26.12.2009 (Annexure-3). Thereafter, a letter dated 29.12.2009 (Annexure-4) was issued by the Corporation informing that his candidature was not found to be eligible for RGGLV, as he did not have land in the advertised location and he was not a resident of the advertised location. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that thereafter the petitioner sent his representation on 16.01.2010 (Annexure-5) to the authorities along with relevant documents showing that the petitioner was qualified for selection of RGGLV vide letter dated 14.06.2010 (Annexure-6). Learned counsel for the petitioner also avers that the proceeding of draw for selection of RGGLV was held on 06.07.2010 and the petitioner was declared as the selected candidate. Learned counsel for the petitioner claims that thereafter the petitioner filed an application before the authorities dated 31.08.2010 stating that if the land offered for godown in his application was not found fit, he is offering another land within the - 3 - revenue village of Turkaulia. However, said request of the petitioner was rejected by the Corporation vide letter dated 03.09.2010 as that land subsequently offered was not offered along with the application. In the meantime, the authorities sent letter dated 27.08.2010 (Annexure-1) holding that as a result of not having own land in the advertised location, the petitioner lost his position/candidature, which was declared in result of draw on 06.07.2010 and it was unable to proceed further with his candidature. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently opposes the impugned orders mentioned above, sent by the authorities stating that his land originally offered was adjacent to the revenue village of Turkaulia and on that basis, his candidature was earlier accepted, hence, there was no occasion for the authorities to subsequently raise such objections and reject his candidature. The second point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that subsequently he had offered land within the jurisdiction of revenue village Turkaulia and the authorities should have considered and accepted the same as the offer of the petitioner was on the direction of the authorities themselves. In this connection, he relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in case of K. Vinod Kumar Vs. S. Palanisamy & Ors. reported in 2003 (4) P.L.J.R. (SC) 175. 7. From the averments made by learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the land originally offered by the petitioner for godown along with his application, was situated in village Laxmipur, which is quite - 4 - different from village Turkaulia, although, may be adjacent. Hence, since the location, which was advertised was the revenue village of Turkaulia, there was no occasion for the authorities to accept the said offer of the petitioner. 8. So far the second point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to the subsequent offer of the land within village Turkaulia is concerned, the law is well settled that the land which was offered in the application in response to notice inviting tender has to be considered and decided upon and no applicant can be allowed to offer any other land in between the proceeding. 9. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in case of K. Vinod Kumar Vs. S. Palanisamy & Ors. (supra) but I am afraid that the said decision does not support the said point raised by the petitioner and does not also make it mandatory for the authorities to consider the land subsequently offered by him. On the other hand the said decision specifically holds that the law is well settled that in a proceeding and in a decision taken in any administrative matter, the scope of judicial review is confined to the decision making process only and does not extend to the merits of the decision taken. 10. In this connection, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the decisions making process and hence there is no scope for this Court to extend the principles of judicial review to the instant case specially in view of the subsequent - 5 - decision of the Supreme Court in case of M/s B. S. N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. Vs. Nair Coal Services Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2006 A.I.R. (SCW) 5834. 11. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Safik (S. N. Hussain, J.)