Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

The instant intra-Court appeal arises from the order dated 4th March 2015 rendered in W.P. No.8 of 2015.

2. The facts in nutshell, leading to the filing of the instant intra-Court appeal are that the appellant Corporation published a notification on 21st September 2013 in 'The Hindu' and 'Daily Thanthi', inviting applications for appointment of LPG distributors in the State of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry under various categories. Under the said notification, location specified inter alia was Puzhal/Kallikuppam in Tiruvallur District. In response thereto, the respondent made an application for allotment of LPG distributorship stating the location 'Puzhal /(to) Kallikuppam'. The said application was considered and the respondent was called for interview. After interview, the officers of the appellant Corporation made field verification for the information given in the application. From the respondent's application, it was found that the respondent was having two showrooms, one at Thirtakeriyampattu Village, Vadagari and Red Hills Post and the other at Bharathidasan Nagar, Shanmugapuram, Red Hills Main Road and that both the show rooms do not fall within the location mentioned in the notification, i.e., Puzhal/Kallikuppam. Accordingly, vide the impugned communication dated 24th December 2014, the respondent was informed that his candidature was found to be not eligible. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred the instant writ petition, questioning the correctness of the said communication dated 24th December 2014.

2.1. The learned Single Judge, defining the term 'location' as indicated infra, allowed the writ petition.

"9.It is to be noted that the location could mean a single location and not multiple locations. Admittedly, the notified area was Puzhal/ Kallikuppam, Tiruvallur District. Therefore, what has to be seen is whether the site offered by the petitioner would fall within the location or locality mentioned, since it is not a single location. Any other interpretation given to the instant case considering the fact that there is more than one location would be inconsistent with the object of the notification. The respondent would be justified in contending that it should be restricted only to the location if the site was notified as a single location. Having given an option of more than one site, locality also would be a very relevant factor. Having held so, it has to be seen as to on what ground, the petitioner was non-suited. The basis of the impugned proceedings is a certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Madhavaram, dated 15.12.2014, wherein, the Tahsildar in response to the query made by the respondent Corporation to confirm the locations of Puzhal, Kallikuppam and Surapet (Shanmugapuram) whether they are in Madhavaram Taluk, gave the following reply:

i. Puzhal is a separate Revenue Village covered under Madhavaram Taluk, Zone -3 Division 22 and 23 under Chennai Corporation limit;

ii. Kallikuppam Village is not covered under Madhavaram Taluk;

iii. Surapet is a separate Revenue Village, it is covered under Madhavaram Taluk Zone - 3 Division 24 under Corporation Chennai limit."

2.2 Aggrieved by and assailing the aforesaid order, the instant intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the appellant Corporation.

2.3 The learned counsel for the appellant Corporation would contend that applications were invited for a particular location/locality, viz., Puzhal/Kallikuppam, specified at Serial No.72 in Tiruvallur District under open category. The respondent made an application indicating the description of the location as 'Puzhal /(to) Kallikuppam'. On the basis of the applications received, drawal of lots of the eligible 16 applicants was conducted. The respondent, having been found successful, was called for interview. Clause 10 of the Guidelines for selection of LPG distributors provides for verification of the information given in the application by the applicant with the relevant original documents and