JUDGMENT

B.N.MAHAPATRA, J.

This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to declare the selection of LPG distributorship for Chhatia in the district of Jajpur under the Rajib Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (in short, ‘RGGLV’ Yojana) in favour of opposite party No.4 – Shri Asit Kumar Sahu as illegal and to quash of the letter dated 14.10.2010 (Annexure-F/2) by which opposite party no.4 was offered RGGLV distributorship at Chhatia on certain conditions mentioned therein. The further prayer of the petitioner is to direct opposite party no.2-Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (in short, ‘BPCL’) to make second draw/lottery for selection of LPG distribution for Chhatia under RGGLV Distributor Scheme.

2. Petitioner’s case in a nutshell is that on 20.10.2009 an advertisement was published in daily Odia Newspaper ‘The Sambad’ by three Oil Companies, namely, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. for selection of RGGLV Distributors in different places within the State. The petitioner applied for distributorship of LPG under BPCL for Chhatia in the district of Jajpur. After scrutiny of the application forms, on 10.4.2010 in website opposite party no.2 has published the names of eligible candidates, who have qualified for selection of RGGLV for Chhatia. In that list, petitioner’s name finds place at Sl. No.2. The said list further discloses that the petitioner has secured 96.5 marks as per the marking procedure for selection. As per the condition stipulated in clause-8 of the advertisement, the selection of candidates for LPG distributor was to be made by lottery among the eligible candidates. Accordingly, vide letter dated 27.4.2010 the petitioner was called for by opposite party no.2 to attend the draw of selection on 18.5.2010 which was scheduled to be held in the Conference Hall of Bharat Petroleum Corporation, Bhubaneswar. Pursuant to the said letter, the petitioner attended the draw on 18.5.2010 and in the said draw opposite party no.4-Asit Kumar Sahu was selected as LPG distributor for Chhatia. Thereafter, petitioner received a letter dated 19.7.2010 from opposite party no.2 inter alia stating that the draw of LPG distributorship for Chhatia will be held on 12.8.2010 in the Conference Hall of BPCL again. Petitioner’s case is that after receiving the said letter, she thought that the previous selection was cancelled. All of a sudden, the petitioner received another letter dated 5.8.2010 from opp. Party no.2 wherein it was stated that the draw scheduled to be held for selection of LPG distributorship for Chhatia on 12.8.2010 has been cancelled. The petitioner’s case is that she learnt from reliable sources that the authorities are going to allot the distributorship of LPG for Chhatia in favour of opposite party no.4 again without making any draw, though he has been disqualified earlier. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Mr. R.K. Swain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the second draw scheduled to be held on 12.8.2010 for selection of LPG distributor for Chhatia was cancelled without assigning any reason. In the present case, draw was made on 18.5.2010, but due to non-fulfilment of criteria the selected persons did not get the allotment for Chhatia in Jajpur district and accordingly, the petitioner along with others were called for second draw which was scheduled to be held on 12.8.2010. Therefore, the action of opposite parties in not making the draw for second time as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement is illegal and arbitrary. The action of opposite party no.2 in not considering the representation of the petitioner and sitting over the matter since August, 2010 is highly illegal and arbitrary in the eye of law. Opposite party no.2 has cancelled the draw without assigning any reason and nothing has been intimated to the petitioner despite repeated requests made to opposite parties. The said action of opp. parties is violative of p