Point of Law: 'Family Unit' in case of married person / applicant, shall consist of individual concerned, his/her Spouse and their unmarried son(s) / daughter(s). In case of unmarried person/ applicant, 'Family Unit' shall consist of individual concerned, his/her parents and his/her unmarried brother(s) and unmarried sister(s). In case of divorcee, 'Family Unit' shall consist of individual concerned, unmarried son(s) / unmarried daughter(s) whose custody is given to him/her. In case of widow / widower, 'Family Unit' shall consist of individual concerned, unmarried son(s) / unmarried daughter(s).”

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondent in its Ref.No.TRAO/RGGLV/01, dated, 14.03.2017 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to consider and grant the petitioner LPG Dealership in Avalurpet Village, Villupuram District.

1. The case of the petitioner is that he is a post graduate hails from the Village called Avalurpet. His family owns large extent of properties in the said Village. The petitioner's father was working as a Teacher in the Government School and he died while in service in the year 1995. According to the petitioner, he and his two brothers and mother constitute the joint family after the demise of their father.

2. In December 2011, the respondent called for applications from persons interested in LPG Distribution. The notification was issued in pursuance of a scheme called Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV). The object behind the scheme was to select suitable distributors for LPG connections in rural areas and in terms of the scheme an applicant should have passed 10th standard and must have attained the age of 21 years. It was further stipulated that the applicants should have a minimum amount in savings bank and should also own a plot in the village to the dimension of 20X24 meters.

3. The applicant being eligible for consideration in the combined category in his Village submitted application by enclosing all necessary and relevant certificates, declaration from the Bank, the details of the immovable property for the family etc. Regarding the immovable property that the petitioner has stated in his application that he was in possession of 2.41 acres of land in S.No.5/2A. The petitioner was also hopeful of being granted the distributorship, as he fulfilled all the eligibility criteria and the norms in terms of the advertisement of the respondent.

4. While so, he was surprised to receive a letter dated 17.02.2012 from the respondent stating that he did not own any land for providing the godown facility with a required dimension in his name. The respondent directed the petitioner to clarify his response on or before 31.03.2012. In response to the letter dated 07.03.2012 the petitioner replied on 28.03.2012 with the supportive documents to declare that a settlement deed was executed by his mother on 20.02.2012 in respect of an immovable property, which would be sufficient to be used as a godown with a required dimension. According to the petitioner, all the documents including patta, encumbrance certificates were enclosed in support of his ownership of the property.

5. Ultimately, the petitioner came to understand that he was not selected for the distributorship on the ground that he did not own the land for providing godown facilities in his name nor the family unit in the advertised location. The petitioner being aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature approached this Court in W.P.(MD).No.9878 of 2012, challenging the communication of the respondent dated, 03.07.2012. This Court on 18.03.2015 allowed the Writ Petition by a well considered decision and directed the respondent to call the petitioner for interview and consider his candidature for grant of dealership.

6. The respondent however filed an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.A.(MD).No.1292 of 2016. A Division Bench of this Court by a detailed order dismissed the Writ Appeal and thereby, confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge. According to the petitioner that this Court in fact relied upon two High Courts decisions and held that if the land in the name of family members would be sufficient to consider the individual applications for allotment of distributorship. After dismissal of the Writ Appeal and detailed reasoning of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner was hoping to be called for interview and eventual grant of allotment. But to the petitioner's sur