1. The petitioner, by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, has impugned the order dated 9.9.2013 passed by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Corporation). The petitioner's candidature is rejected by this order.

2. The admitted facts between the parties are that the petitioner preferred candidature/application for proposed Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak Yojna (RGGLV) at Dinara, District Shivpuri. The said candidature was submitted by pursuant to advertisement Annexure P-2. By brochure (Annexure P-3), the respondents Corporation has prescribed the eligibility criteria and other relevant considerations. Admittedly, the petitioner at the time of submission of initial application stated that he is not married and he is “single”. However, at the time of spot inspection, the petitioner submitted a representation, Annexure P-10. By this representation, he informed the Corporation that his marriage was solemnized on 13.6.2011 but incorrectly he mentioned his marital status as “single”. It is prayed in this representation that his aforesaid status be corrected.

3. The respondents, in turn, passed the impugned order and rejected the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that he suppressed the material fact in his original application. In other words, it is held that the petitioner has misrepresented the fact about his marriage in his initial application for RGGLV and secondly, he does not meet the eligibility criteria for land as the land shown by the petitioner is in the name of his father. As per the definition mentioned in the brochure, petitioner is not eligible.

4. Shri Yogesh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, by criticizing the said reasons contended that the petitioner did not have command in English. He filled up the initial form of candidature in English with the help of a friend, who knows English. Because of the error of his friend, his marital status was incorrectly shown as “single” and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has misrepresented any fact. He further submits that the affidavit of father, Annexure P-11 and the will in favour of the petitioner, Annexure P-13 makes it clear that the petitioner will be the owner of the property/land. He submits that the said property has to be treated as ancestral co-parcener property on which petitioner has a legal right and, therefore, the definition relied upon is irrational. He further submits that before canceling the candidature of the petitioner, no opportunity of hearing is provided which runs contrary to the principles of natural justice and the judgments reported in ILR (2013) MP 837 (Central Homeopathic and Biochemic Association, Gwalior and others v. State of M.P. and others). He also relied on certain provisions of the Contract Act to submit that if anything is incorrectly mentioned in the contract that will not make the contract as a void one. By placing reliance on AIR 1994 SC 988 (Union of India and others v. Hindustan Development Corpn. and others), it is contended that a Government Organization cannot put improper restrictions nor can prescribe arbitrary or unjustifiable reservations in the policy or principles.

5. Per contra, Ms. Sweta Bothra, learned counsel for the Corporation, supported the order. By taking this Court to various paragraphs of the return, it is contended that there is no legal error in the order impugned which warrant interference by this Court.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The advertisement, Annexure P-2 prescribes general conditions. As per condition 14(a) read with (f), the right was reserved by the Corporation to reject the candidature, if any information is found to be false or incorrect. Such condition is also mentioned in the brochure in clause 16. It is mentioned that if any information given by the applicant is found to be incorrect, the allotment shall be cancelled. Even if allotment order is issued, it will be cancelled.

8.