The criteria for distributorship under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Scheme are mandatory, and the rejection of the writ petitioner's application was not arbitrary.

JUDGMENT :

Partha Sarathi Sen, J.

1. In this writ petition the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus upon the respondents more specifically upon the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 commanding them to appoint the writ petitioner as a distributor under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG scheme (herein after referred to as the ‘said scheme’ in short) for Kojalsha G.P., Berugram, Block-Ketugram-1, District-Burdwan.

2. The writ petitioner was an aspirant to be appointed as a distributor however, his candidature was turned down by the respondent No.2 & 3 that is the oil company and its functionaries.

3. In course of his Argument, Mr. Banerjee, Learned Advocate for the writ petitioner submits before this Court that pursuant to an advertisement published in a daily newspaper, the petitioner on 06.06.2013 applied for a distributorship under the said scheme in respect of the abovementioned G.P. and at that time the writ petitioner offered 0.15 decimal of land in plot no. 724 for his proposed godown space.

4. It is further argued by Mr. Banerjee that the at the time of field verification it was noticed by the officer of the respondent oil company that in the title deed of the petitioner in respect of the said plot of land, the plot no. of the approach road has been wrongly mentioned as Plot No. 761 which should be 722.

5. It is further argued by Mr. Banerjee that soon thereafter the vendor of the petitioner had executed a deed of undertaking for execution of a deed of rectification and the same was communicated to the respondent/oil company.

6. It is further submitted by Mr. Banerjee that admittedly on the day of submission of application(26.06.2013) by the petitioner, he has not sufficient requisite balance of Rs. 4 lacs in his account as has been mentioned in the aforesaid advertisement but soon thereafter that is on 29.06.2013 the writ petitioner had requisite balance in his account.

7. Drawing attention to page 19 of the writ petition being a copy of the letter of rejection as issued by the respondent/oil company, it is further submitted by Mr. Banerjee that for no reason whatsoever the writ petitioner’s candidature has been cancelled since the alleged non-fulfillment of the criterion by the writ petitioner is not fatal as those criterion are mere directory and not mandatory and further such criterion can be fulfilled subsequent to making the application and even after selection. In this regard Mr. Banerjee places his reliance upon two reported decisions namely; K. Vinod Kumar vs. S. Palanisamy and Ors reported in (2003) 10 SCC 681 and Reeta Singh (Smt.) vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. reported in ILR (2017) M.P, 1656.

8. It is further submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that the letter of rejection of the candidature dated 21/23.01.2014 is arbitrary, mala fide and violative of principle of natural of justice and the same may be set aside by directing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to appoint the writ petitioner as a distributor in the said G.P. since in the said G.P. no one has been appointed as a distributor as on this day under the said scheme.

9. Per contra Mr. Chakraborty, Learned advocate for respondents/oil company at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the writ petition. It is submitted that in the writ petition the writ petitioner has not made out any case for obtaining any relief as prayed for. Drawing attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-reply as filed by the writ petitioner it is argued that in such reply the writ petitioner has made out a completely new case.

10. It is further submitted by Mr. Chakraborty that the argument as advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner is totally beyond the pleading of the writ petition.

11. In his next fold of submission, Mr Chakraborty draws attention of this Court to the various clauses of the brochure for selection of the distributors under the said scheme which has been annexed with the affidavit-in-opposition as filed by the respondent/oil company. It is submitte