The cancellation of the appellant's selection was found to be unjustified as the offered lands were within the notified location, and the subsequent selection of the second respondent during the pendency of the appeal was held to be unsustainable.

1. Though the miscellaneous petitions are listed for hearing, by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Appeal itself is taken up for disposal.

2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge made in W.P.No.16000 of 2011, dated 27.2.2013 in dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein challenging the order of the first respondent herein, dated 13.6.2011 and consequently for a direction to allot the dealership distribution of LPG in Rajiv Gandhi Village LPG Vitrak Scheme for Pochampalli Village to the appellant herein.

3. The case of the appellant before the Writ Court is as follows:

The first respondent issued an advertisement on 31.3.2010 for awarding dealership distribution of LPG under Rajiv Gandhi Village LPG Vitrak Scheme (RGGLV Scheme) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme'). The appellant applied for Pochampalli Division. She satisfied all the norms and produced all the relevant records. After scrutinising all the documents, the first respondent found the appellant as suitable candidate for participating in the process of selection. On 25.9.2010, the scrutinisation was done and she had shown the lands in S.Nos.600/1 and 603 for construction of the godown at Pochampalli. The said property is located adjacent to the Taluk Office at Pochampalli. The title deeds of the said property though referred the said property as located at Jambukuttapatti Village, the said Village is also one of the hamlets of Pochampalli, and hence, those lands satisfy the norms. The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar also issued a Certificate stating that the Revenue Village, namely Jambukuttapatti is the hamlet Village of Pochampalli. However, the first respondent issued the impugned communication, dated 13.6.2011, stating that the lands shown by the appellant in the application is located at Jambukuttapatti Village, which is not the place for which the advertisement was issued. Thus, the LPG dealership by draw, was treated as cancelled.

4. The Writ Petition was resisted by the first respondent stating as follows:

The subject location was found to be not satisfying the minimum eligibility criteria, as the appellant was not owning lands in the advertised location. Therefore, the first respondent got the approval of the competent authority for dropping the said location from the Scheme. It is open for the Oil Companies to drop the location from the Scheme, if they are found to be unworkable or not feasible. The appellant was selected through draw and after selection and conducting field verification, it was found that the lands offered by her were not in the advertised location, even though her residence was within the location. Jambukuttapatti Village is a Revenue Village situated in the Taluk of Pochampalli and Pochampalli is a hamlet within the Revenue Village of Jambukuttapatti.

5. The learned single Judge found that the first respondent having advertised for location of the LPG godown in a particular place, cannot be compelled to have the said godown in Jambukattupatti Village, even though it is a Revenue Village situated in the Taluk of Pochampalli. The learned single Judge further pointed out that the appellant admittedly did not offer the lands at Pochampalli Village or Town. Based on the above reasonings, the learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition.

6. Challenging the said order passed by the learned single Judge, the above Writ Appeal was filed originally only by impleading the first respondent as party-respondent. However, during the pendency of the above Writ Appeal, the respondents 2 and 3 were impleaded as party-respondents, by order dated 30.10.2013 made in M.P.No.3 of 2013 and 10.6.2014 made in M.P.No.2 of 2014 respectively. The second respondent in this Writ Appeal is the selected candidate in pursuant to the fresh advertisement issued by the first respondent, after the dismissal of the Writ Petition and during the pendency of this Writ Appeal. The third