Y. B. SURYAVANSHI J. ( 1 ) THE orders passed in Misc. Petition No. 2296 of 1985 shall also govern disposal of Misc. Petition No. 3398 of 1986, since they relate to connected matters, namely, Distributorship of Liqufied Petrolium Gas (LPG) commonly known as 'cooking gas', for Sarni area in revenue district Betul. Both these petitions are under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In M. P. No. 2296/85, the petitioner Ashok Kumar Sable, who was one of the applicants for Distributorship of LPG, is aggrieved against the appointment of Distributorship of respondent 3 Manoharlal Adwani, and the prayer is to quash the letter of intent (Annexure-P-4), dt. 18-6-1985 (Document No. 1 in M. P. No. 3398/86) for appointment for Distributorship of LPG at Sarni on the ground that the said Manoharlal was not eligible for such appointment. The further prayer is that the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner Ashok Kumar Sable. In the other petition, M. P. No. 3398/86, the petitioner, Manoharlal Adwani has challenged document No. 3 dt. 8/12th May 1986 from Collector, Betul, addressed to IOC Ltd, intimating that after an enquiry, the requisite certificate of residence issued on 26-4-1986 in favour of Manoharlal Adwani has been cancelled. The petitioner Manoharlal Adwani has challenged these orders and proceedings being unauthorised, mala fide and having been passed without affording him proper opportunity. ( 2 ) (I) The material facts common to both the petitions and which are not disputed are as follows: The respondent Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (for short, called IOC) is a nationalised company incorporated under the Companies act and that all its shares were owned by the Union of India; it supplies LPG, and for that purpose, it is giving dealership/distributorship to persons in different areas. According to its established procedure, the respondents had issued an advertisement in a daily news paper "dainik Bhaskar", Bhopal, dt. 8-2-1984, for appointment of distributorship for Indane Gas at Sarni in revenue district Betul (advertisement Annexure-P-2 ). Inter alia, one of the essential conditions was that a person seeking distributorship, under condition No. 2 (Chh) had to be, at least three years preceding, a resident of district Betul, though preference would be given to a candidate residing in place/area of distribution, i. e. Sarni. The petitioners in both the petitions, i. e. Ashok Kumar Sable and Manoharlal Adwani, submitted their applications. The petitioners in both the petitions, i. e. Ashok Kumar Sable and Manoharlal Adwani, submitted their applications. They were called by the Oil Selection Board (West) on or about 3-4-1985 for interviews. This Selection Board has been constituted under the directives of the Union of India and it comprised of one retired High Court Judge as Chairman and other senior Civil Servants as its members. After the advertisement, the applications received by the IOC, after necessary scrutiny, are forwarded to the Board which again scrutinises the applications and calls those candidates who are found eligible and whose applications are found to be complete in all respects for interview/test. Then a "merit list" of selected candidates is prepared on the basis of marks obtained in the interview/test, which is then forwarded to the IOC for Field Investigation. After receipt of Field Investigation Report, the Board selects finally. (ii) According to the above procedure, the interview/tests were held by the Board and the respondent, 3 (in M. P. No. 2296/85) Manoharlal Adwani was selected by the Board, as he was No. 1 in the merit list. The petitioner's (Ashok Kumar Sable's) position was No. 2 in the merit-list. The pivotal controversy in thispetition is regarding observance of residential requirement, referred in condition No. 2 (Chh) of the said advertisement. The selected respondent 3, Manoharlal Adwani had filed an application and an affidavit dt. 17-4-1982 for issuance of a "residence certificate" as required, which was granted by Shri A. K. Rai, Naib Tahsildar on 23-3-1985 (Annexure-R3-II ). On the basis of that, the Dy. Collector had issued "residence Certificate" (Annexure-R3-I) on 26-4-1985. There is no dispute that the petitioner Ashok Kumar Sable is a resident of Betul district. (iii) After the abovesaid selection, ICC issued on 18-6-85 a letter of intent in favour of Manoharlal Adwani (petitioner in M. P. No. 2298/86 and respondent 3 in M. P. No. 2296/85 ). He was intimated that it is intended to offer him the distributorship for Sarni on various conditions which were mentioned in the letter of intent, which included procurement of a suitable plot of land etc. However, thereafter, as would appear from Annexure-P6 in M. P. No. 2296/85, one Anandrao Patankar on 11-9-85 filed a complaint in writing in the form of an affidavit before the Collector, Betul, in which he stated that in the "residence Certificate" dt. 26-41985, the Dy. However, thereafter, as would appear from Annexure-P6 in M. P. No. 2296/85, one Anandrao Patankar on 11-9-85 filed a complaint in writing in the form of an affidavit before the Collector, Betul, in which he stated that in the "residence Certificate" dt. 26-41985, the Dy. Collector had stated that Manoharlal Adwani is a permanent resident of Sarni, that, it is a "false certificate" for multifarious reasons mentioned in that complaint. It was therefore, prayed that the matter be enquired into the false residence certificate be cancelled, and legal action be taken against the defaulters. On this basis, the Collector, who is also District Vigilance Officer, Betul, conducted an enquiry and ultimately cancelled the "residence Certificate" issued by the Dy. Collector in favour of Manoharlal Adwani. Furthermore, the Collector informed (DC that the "residence Certificate" dt. 26-4-1986, after enquiry, was found to be false and had been cancelled, and if any distributorship/agency has been granted on basis of the false "residence certificate" it is liable to cancelled (Annexure-Document No. 3 in M. P. No. 2289/86 ). ( 3 ) IN the background of above facts, M. P. No. 2296/85 has been filed by the petitioner Ashok Kumar Sable alleging, that he fulfilled all the requirements for distributorship and was hopeful of being selected; that, all of a sudden, he learnt about the said appointment order issued in favour of respondent 3 Manoharlal Adwani; that, respondent 3 started looking for a plot and is trying to get a plot from the Chief Engineer of the M. P. E. B. , but has not yet started any construction ; that, respondent 3 is a permanent resident of Bairagarh (Bhopal) where his name is mentioned in the voters' list of Govindpura Vidhan Sabha Constituency (Annexure-P-5); that, respondent 3 Manoharlal Adwani is not a person residing since last three years in revenue district of Betul and therefore, he had no right to get the distributorship of LPG ; that, respondent 3 somehow or the other manipulated, in spite of his ineligibility for appointment, to get distributorship, that, the respondents 1, 2 and 4 without complying with the conditions in the advertisement have appointed respondent 3 as distributor. Hence the prayer that the orders appointing respondent 3 as distributor (Annexure-P4) be quashed and the petitionor be appointed instead. Hence the prayer that the orders appointing respondent 3 as distributor (Annexure-P4) be quashed and the petitionor be appointed instead. ( 4 ) IN M. P. No. 2296/85, the respondent 1 and 2, i. e. the Divisional Manager and the Dy. General Manager of IOC filed a joint return. Apropos the preliminary objection, the petitioner by amendment added respondent 4, Oil Selection Board, as respondent. They stated, that Manoharlal Adwani, respondent 3, had produced "residence Certificate" from the competent officer that he is a resident of Sarni, district Betul, and on basis thereof he was appointed as distributor, as per selection made by the Selection Board. They further stated that no right of the petitioner has been infringed or violated, and the conditions mentioned in the advertisement have been complied and no case of discrimination has been made out. The petition is thus misconceived and therefore, devoid of any substance and is liable to be dismissed. ( 5 ) IN M. P. No. 2296/85, respondent 3 Manoharlal Adwani filed a return stating, that as per requirements of the advertisement, he is a resident of Sarni since Jan. , 1981; that, he had applied for "residence Certificate" which was issued by the Naib Tahsildar, Betul on 25-3-1985, and a similar certificate was also issued by the Dy. Collector, Betul on 26-4-1988: that, the voters' list is not the proper criteria and the "residence Certificate" supersedes the voters' list; that, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, this Court is refrained from entering into such controversies; that, after receiving the letter of intent, he had taken further steps as required, though "this activity suffered some set back in the grant of plot by the M. P. E. B. because of the stay granted by this Court"; after vacation of stay, he has "again commenced activity with renewed vigour. " ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the return filed by respondent 4. Oil Selection Board, one of the requirements for eligibility for distributorship was residence of three years in Betul district to be certified by revenue officer not below the rank of Dy. Tahsildar. " ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the return filed by respondent 4. Oil Selection Board, one of the requirements for eligibility for distributorship was residence of three years in Betul district to be certified by revenue officer not below the rank of Dy. Tahsildar. The applications were received by IOC and after scrutiny they were forwarded to the Board; that, the Board also scrutinises the applications and calls for interviews the candidates found eligible and thereafter, a " merit list" was prepared; that, they have neither acted illegally nor have discriminated between the petitioner Ashok Kumar Sable and respondent 3 Manoharlal Adwani; that, the matters raised by the petitioner in the petition as also in the rejoinder are disputed facts for which the petitioner cannot have any right to invoke the writ jurisdiction and he may seek his remedy, if any, under the general law. ( 7 ) IN M. P. No. 2296/85, the petitioner Ashok Kumar Sable filed a rejoinder dt. 30-9-1985 and also an additional rejoinder dt. 157-1986. Therein, it is stated that the Naib Tahsildar, Betul issued "residence. Certificate" "solely" on the basis of an affidavit filed by respondent,3; that Anandrao Patankar filed a camplaint that respondent 3 had obtained a "false certificate"; this complaint was on affidavit (Annexure-P6 dt. 11-11-1985) ; that the complainant had annexed voters list (Ann ex. P-8) showing respondent 3 as a voter of Govindpura Vidhan Sabha Constituency of Bhopal, that, there are certificates issued by Smt. Meera Dhurve, M. L. A. Sarni Ghodadongri; ex-President, Nagar Palika Parishad, Patharkheda-Sarni; Shri Ramgulam, ex-M. L. A. Sarni Ghodadongri, respectively, annexures-P-1), P-11 and P-12, dt. 11-11-1985) ; that the complainant had annexed voters list (Ann ex. P-8) showing respondent 3 as a voter of Govindpura Vidhan Sabha Constituency of Bhopal, that, there are certificates issued by Smt. Meera Dhurve, M. L. A. Sarni Ghodadongri; ex-President, Nagar Palika Parishad, Patharkheda-Sarni; Shri Ramgulam, ex-M. L. A. Sarni Ghodadongri, respectively, annexures-P-1), P-11 and P-12, dt. 6-6-1985, 10-8-1985 and 25-7-1985 to the effect that Manoharlal son of Narayandas Adwani has never been a resident of Sarni; that, the complainant Anandrao Patankar had submitted various documents in support of his complaint in the enquiry in the matter of grant of "residence Certificate"; that, the Collector, Betul issued show cause notice to respondent 3 and after a thorough enquiry came to the conclusion that respondent was not a permanent resident of Sarni and accordingly, the "residence Certificate" granted earlier was cancelled and the respondents were also informed thereof; that, the Collector had further directed the police to take criminal proceedings against respondent 3 for obtaining a false certificate, and departmental enquiry has been ordered against the Naib Tahsildar who had issued the "residence Certificate" ; that, accordingly, it is crystal clear that respondent 3 was not at all liable for selection and could not have been given distributorship. ( 8 ) PAUSING here, it would be useful to mention that M. P. No. 2296/185 was filed on 31-7-1985 along with an application for stay. It was ordered that status quo be maintained. On 3-9-1985, having heard all the counsel, the ad interim order dt. 31-7-1985 was "modified" to the extent that respondent 3 Manoharlal Adwani may go ahead with the construction of show room, godown etc. pursuant to the offer made to him in the intent letter, and it was directed that pending disposal of this petition, no final agreement between respondents 1 and 2 on the one hand and respondent 3 on the other be made. On 7-12-1985, the ad interim stay as modified above, was vacated; but it was observed, that the IOC can commission dealership to respondent 3 and he can start functioning "at his own risk". We will point out subsequently why it had become necessary to mention this fact. ( 9 ) THE petitioner in M. P. No. 3398/86, Manoharlal Adwani filed the petition on 25-10-1986. We will point out subsequently why it had become necessary to mention this fact. ( 9 ) THE petitioner in M. P. No. 3398/86, Manoharlal Adwani filed the petition on 25-10-1986. He alleged that the petitioner in the other petition wields considerable "political Power"; that, the petitioner Ashok Kumar Sable had engineered the complaint and the Collector/respondent succumbed to political pressure and the impugned order cancelling the " Residence Certificate" was passed; the orders are mala fide, improper and in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice because he was not afforded an opportunity before passing such order; and the Collector had no authority to initiate proceedings for cancellation of such certificate. ( 10 ) IN M. P. No. 3398/86, the Collector filed the return, stating, that it is not known whether the other petitioner wields any political power or influence; that after proper enquiry it was found that a false certificate had been issued to the petitioner on the basis of a false affidavit; that proper opportunity was given to this petitioner-Manoharlal Adwani, who had further moved a representation before the Commissioner which was also dismissed on 23-8-1987 (Annexure-R1); that, the action taken is neither mala fide nor influenced by any other consideration as alleged, but "is a counterblast to forestall the orders passed by the Commissioner for taking legal action for obtaining a false certificate. " ( 11 ) THE learned counsel Shri S. L. Kochar for the petitioner in M. P. No. 2296 of 85 and the learned Counsel Shri J. P. Sanghi for the respondents 1, 2 and 4 and Shri V. R. Rao for Manoharlal Adwani in both the cases and Shri Namdeo appearing for the Collector in the other petition No. 3398 of 86, heard. Theprincipal points which call for decision are as follows : - (i) Whether the petition No. 2296/85 has become infructuous? (ii) Whether the above petition is otherwise not maintainable? (iii) Whether the selection of respondent 3 Manoharlal Adwani is illegal because he was ineligible for appointment of distributorship as per advertisement of the I. O. C. ? (iv) Whether document No. 3 in M. P. No. 3398, of 86 deserves to be quashed on grounds stated by the petitioner Manohorlal Adwani? ( 12 ) POINT No. (i) according to the learned counsel Sarvashri Rao and J. P. Ganghi, this petition has become infructuous. (iv) Whether document No. 3 in M. P. No. 3398, of 86 deserves to be quashed on grounds stated by the petitioner Manohorlal Adwani? ( 12 ) POINT No. (i) according to the learned counsel Sarvashri Rao and J. P. Ganghi, this petition has become infructuous. It was stated, that after the stay orders being vacated, the respondent Manoharlal Adwani who was already granted distributoraship of Indane Gas has constructed the Godown and Show Room and has commenced the work of distribution. This fact has been emphatically denied by the learned counsel Shri Kochar who maintained, that uptill now, no agency had been given for distribution, and there is no show room or godown as counter, alleged. It is for those contentions in Para 8 (above) we have mentioned certain facts and dates relating to ad interim stay granted by this Court. When ultimately on 7-12-85 this Court vacated the ad interim stay, it was specifically ordered that the I. O. C. can commission dealership to respondent 3 Manoharlal Adwani but that would be "at his own risk". To be precise, it means subject to the decision of the petition. Even in the other petition No. 3398/86, subsequently filed by Manoharlal Adwani, in Paras he had mentioned that pursuant to his selection for dealership or distributorship, he approached Chief Engineer M. P. E. B. for a suitable plot. But in the wake of the Writ Petition filed by Ashok Kumar Sable, the Chief Engineer has "adopted indifferent attitude". In para 3 of the petition all that he said was "that he had to procure plot within four months and make financial arrangements". In Para 8 of his Return in petition No. 2296/88, the total allegations are that "after the vacation of stay, he has commenced activities with renewed vigour; security deposit etc, for telephone connection has been deposited". All that we can say on the above basis is that after the vacation of stay, he might have taken some other incidental steps. But there is nothing on record to show that the business of dealership has actually commenced. Moreover, adverting to orders dt. 7-12-85 even assuming for the sake of arguments that he has commenced dealership, that was at his own risk. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the contention that this petition No. 2296/85 has become infructuous. But there is nothing on record to show that the business of dealership has actually commenced. Moreover, adverting to orders dt. 7-12-85 even assuming for the sake of arguments that he has commenced dealership, that was at his own risk. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the contention that this petition No. 2296/85 has become infructuous. ( 13 ) POINT No. (ii)" It was next contended that the petitioner Ashok Kumar Sable has no right to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction to probe into disputed question of facts which can be resolved only by evidence; and that he has no adequate remedy to approach the Civil Court to get the disputed facts decided. Therefore, it is urged, that this petition is not maintainable. The legal proposition "that this Court does not enter into disputed fact in exercise of writ jurisdiction" is axiomatic and cannot be disputed. But this is over simplifying the contentions and the controversy raised in the petitions. There is no denying the fact that the respondent I. O. C. (Indian Oil Corporation Limited) is "state" within the ambit of Art. 12 of Constitution. As observed in Ramana v. International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628 , "where a Corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government, it would in the exercise of its power or discretion, be subject to the same constitutional or public law limitations as Government. . . . . . . . . . . . . . The State cannot therefore, act arbitrarily in entering into relationship contractual or otherwise with a third party, but its action must conform to some standard or norm which is rational and non-discriminatory. " ( 14 ) IN the petitions before us, the I. O. C. issued advertisement inviting applications for distributorship. One of the essential or rather mandatory conditions is condition No. 2 (Chha) which reads as follows :-the pivotal controversy revolves on the question whether the respondent 3 Manoharlal Adwani was ineligible to be an applicant, being a non-resident of District Betul/sarni for a period of at least three years and consequentially his selection is bad and vitiated? On averments of parties and facts placed before us, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the contention that the controversy cannot be decided in those writ petitions. On averments of parties and facts placed before us, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the contention that the controversy cannot be decided in those writ petitions. ( 15 ) POINT No. (iii) the petitioner Ashok Kumar Sable has frequently referred in the petition that respondent 3 Manoharlal Adwani had never been a "permanent" resident of revenue district Betul. Such expression namely "permanent Resident" is not the requirement mentioned in the advertisement are, (sic) that such candidate should have been a resident of District Betul for at least three years, but preference would be given to an applicant who is a resident of the place of which distributorship is being given, namely Sarni. Respondent 3 Manoharlal Adwani on basis of the resident certificate issued by the Naib Tahsildar/deputy Collector, made an application, and in fact, on basis thereof, his application otherwise being complete, was forwarded to the Selection Board which in turn, had selected him in the interview, and also thereafter, in the final list after field investigations. Prima facie the action by the I. O. C. and the selection Board cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal, though it is a different matter that the selection itself is vitiated because he was totally ineligible being a non-resident of Sarni and District Betul. ( 16 ) ON the other hand the learned counsel for the petitioner Ashok Kumar Sable urged, that the condition of eligibility mentioned above was mandatory and the application of a candidate has to be according to essential requirements, namely (i) he should be a resident of the district Betul for 3 years; secondly (ii) preference would be given if he is a resident of the place within the district of which distributorship is given i. e. Sarni. Having considered the petition, in M. P. No. 2296 of 85 and the returns filed by all the four respondents and the rejoinder and additional rejoinder filed by the petitioner and also the petition in M. P. No. 3398/86 a and the Collector's return therein, we are of the view that respondent 3 Manoharlal Adwani was not totally ineligible to apply for dealership or distributorship as per advertisement, and consequentially, his selection is bad and vitiated. The Collector-respondent, besides the return, had placed before us the entire record of the enquiry held in the matter of the complaint by one Anandrao Patankar alleging that Manoharlal Adwani had manipulated to obtain a false resident certificate. ( 17 ) ON perusal of the records we find that in the rejoinder and additional rejoinder the petitioner Ashok Kumar Sable had further submitted numerous documents to show how the resident certificate was surreptitiously granted by the Naib Tahsildar. ( 18 ) ANNEXURE-P-17 annexed to the rejoinder is a copy of the application dt. 23-3-85 for grant of resident certificate. It was addressed to Naib Tahsildar. He stated that he was residing at Sarni for preceding four years and a resident-certificate be granted Annexure-P-14, is an affidavit dt. 17-2-84 in which he stated that he is a Medical Salesman and is residing at Sarni for last 3 years. In this affidavit, he gives address as Super-C Qr. No. 227 Sarni. The resident certificate which was alone relied upon by Manoharlal Adwani for his application for distributorship, is R 3/2 dt. 23-3-85 issued by Shri A. K. Rai, Naib Tahsildar, and R-3 (I) dt. 26-4-85 issued by Deputy Collector. He is thus shown to be residing in Sarni from last four years. On scrutiny of the record, it appears that the Naib Tahsildar merely on bash of the affidavit filed by Manoharlal Adwani surreptitiously issued resident certificate; and on that basis Deputy Collector issued another resident certificate. ( 19 ) (A) The learned counsel Shri Kochar urged that in the affidavit Annexure-P-14, the address is shown as Super C, Quarter No. 227 Sarni. Contra, in the resident. Certificate granted by Shri R. K. Rai Naib Tahsildar Betul (Ann.-P-13) his address is shown to be C/o Mr. S. K. Khiani Qr. No. C 99 Officers Colony, S. T. P. S. Post Sarni. The discrepancy between the numbers of the quarters is obvious. (b) According to copy of the voters-list Annexure-P-8, the respondent Mahoharlal Adwani and his wife are shown to be voters from Govindpura Assembly Constituency as on 11-7-85. The learned counsel for the respondent Adwani contended, that this is "not the conclusive evidence". The discrepancy between the numbers of the quarters is obvious. (b) According to copy of the voters-list Annexure-P-8, the respondent Mahoharlal Adwani and his wife are shown to be voters from Govindpura Assembly Constituency as on 11-7-85. The learned counsel for the respondent Adwani contended, that this is "not the conclusive evidence". But then except such averments there is nothing more in the return filed by Monoharlal Adwani to accept the contention that "such records cannot be relied upon because the names of the persons who are no more alive are also sometimes continued to be recorded. " That may be so, but there are other compelling circumstances which cannot be ignored. Annexure-P-9 is a letter from M. P. E. B. Karmachari Upbhokta Bhandar specifically alleging that there was no ration card in the name of Manoharlal Adwani; Annexure-P-10 is a certificate from Smt. Dhurve, MLA Sarni; Annexure-P-11 and P-12 respectively, are certificates from ex-President Nagar Palika Parishad and Shri Ramjilal Uike ex. MLA Sarni also to the effect that Manoharlal Adwani was non-resident of Sarni; Annexure-P-18 is an affidavit by Harilal who had deposed that he has affixed his signatures on the affidavit filed by Shri Manoharlal Adwani, only as an identifier and that he has come to know subsequently that Manoharlal Adwani's name is in the voterslist from Bairagarh (Bhopal) and, therefore, his signatures be deemed to be cancelled. In other words, he does not say that Manoharlal Adwani lived at Sern, Annexure-P-15 is the voters-list of those residing in new Super-C area which seems to have been filed to show that Adwani's name does not find place therein. ( 20 ) IN the original record of enquiry which has been submitted by the Collector in M. P. No. 3398/86, there is a letter from M. P. E. B. Sarni informing Collector-District Vigilance Officer that since 31-7-84 Or. No. 227 Supper C was allotted to S. K. Khiani, A. E. in which he continued to live up to 6-10-84. It was jointly allotted to others also. Shri Khiani was also examined in the enquiry, and he does not state that Manoharlal Adwani lived at Sarni. According to him, Manoharlal Adwani is an "adopted brother" engaged as Medical Salesman and used to visit Sarni 3 to 4 days in a week; in that capacity he is visiting since 1981 and staying with him on such visits. Shri Khiani was also examined in the enquiry, and he does not state that Manoharlal Adwani lived at Sarni. According to him, Manoharlal Adwani is an "adopted brother" engaged as Medical Salesman and used to visit Sarni 3 to 4 days in a week; in that capacity he is visiting since 1981 and staying with him on such visits. It is needless to say that a medical representative is mostly on wheels visiting different places and such visits cannot be said to be places of residence. Accordingly, on a perusal of entire record, we are of the view that in order to show himself as an eligible applicant for distributorship, Manoharlal Adwani manipulated to obtain a resident-certificate which is the only basis for his contention that he is a resident of Sarni; and this very certificate after the enquiry has been cancelled by the Collector being false. ( 21 ) POINT No. (iv)the learned counsel for Manoharlal Adwani had challenged the cancellation order of the earlier resident certificate on the grounds which are briefly considered. It was stated that the Collector had no authority to initiate proceedings for cancellation. This argument is devoid of any substance. Actually, it is the petitioner Adwani who applied for certificate of residence as was required under the advertisement for eligibility as it was one of the essential requirements for applying for dealership. He took advantage of it, and now it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that the Collector had no authority to cancel it. The power to grant such certificate implies power to cancel it. The second contention that the Collector passed those orders because of some "extraneous considerations or political influence", is baseless. May be, the non-selected candidate may have indirectly engineered a complaint through Patankar. The Collector is District Vigilance Officer, and officially, a revenue case was registered (annexure-P-16) filed with the rejoinder, and resident certificates were issued. The conduct of the officials was also involved, and we see no reason why enquiry as has been done should not have been conducted. May be, the non-selected candidate may have indirectly engineered a complaint through Patankar. The Collector is District Vigilance Officer, and officially, a revenue case was registered (annexure-P-16) filed with the rejoinder, and resident certificates were issued. The conduct of the officials was also involved, and we see no reason why enquiry as has been done should not have been conducted. Since on basis of such resident certificate found to be false, the Collector had to inform the authorities which were concerned, i. e. I. O. C. In fact the original record of the enquiry was placed before us to meet the contention that Manoharlal Adwani was not given an opportunity of hearing and there was breach of rules of natural justice. We find that against the orders passed by the Collector, there was a miscellaneous representation to the Commissioner who has passed an order dt. 23-1-87 (Annesure I) filed with the return of the Collector wherein it is recorded that the Collector had also given an opportunity to Manoharlal Adwani to represent his interest, but "he could not controvert the evidence brought in support of the complaint against him. "thus, the net position is that there was enquiry into the complaint and an opportunity was given to the petitioner Manoharlal Adwani who was unable to controvert the evidence to the contrary. His statement was also recorded in the course of enquiry. We find that the petitioner Adwani did not file any rejoinder in M. P. No. 3398 of 86, and also did not file any further return controverting the facts brought out in the rejoinder and addl. rejoinder. Therefore, in those circumstances, the action taken by the Collector-cum-District Vigilance Officer in the matter of the complaint cannot be said to be arbitrary, mala fide or illegal. When the finding is that Manoharlal Adwani was not a resident of Sarni, the issuance of the certificate to such effect was false and the Collector obviously, informed the concerned authorities on basis of which Adwani had tried or actually taken some advantage in obtaining distributorship. ( 22 ) DURING the course of arguments Shri Shanghi placed reliance on Vishnupuri Upbhokta Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Khatauli v. Divisional Manager, Indian Oil Corpn. ( 22 ) DURING the course of arguments Shri Shanghi placed reliance on Vishnupuri Upbhokta Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Khatauli v. Divisional Manager, Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. New Delhi, AIR 1986 All 211 , which was also a writ petition challenging the appointment of one of the respondents for dealership or distributorship of L. P. G. That was a case where the petitioner, a registered Co-operative Society has challenged the grant of dealership to respondent 3 on two grounds :- (I) that the petitioner being a co-operative society was entitled to preference as against respondent 3 because the petitioner was resident of the place of distributorship; and (ii) respondent 3 was admittedly a resident of Muzaffarnagar not entitled to preference under the advertisement but the petitioner was entitled to such preference. In this connection, their Lordships observed :"mr. Misra argued that the petitioner was a resident of Khatauli and as such was entitled to the preference as against respondent 3, who was not a resident of Khatauli. Clause (Gha) contains one of the essential requisites that a candidate must possess. It requires him to be a resident of district Musaffarnagar. Respondent 3 is admittedly a resident of Muzaffarnagar. The question of preference would arise only where there was a lie between respondent 3 and the petitioner. One cannot claim preference being given to him when he is otherwise not selected. It has come in the affidavit of Smt. Janki Amma. Chairman of the Board that the petitioner was not among the first four selected by the Board for the grant of distributorship of Khatauli. Her affidavit further confirms that the rest of the candidates were not found fit. We, therefore, find no misinterpretation of the provisions of Clause (Gha) by the Board. "that decision is not at all applicable in the petitions before us. In that decision, both the contenders were eligible and the question involved was only that of preference. Moreover, the petitioner society was not in selection List. In the petitions before us, it is not the question of preferring the petitioner as against the respondent 3 who was not at all qualified/eligible to enter in the competitive selection. He was not eligible even to file the application as per advertisement. The ineligibility went to the root of the matter vitiating the selection. In the petitions before us, it is not the question of preferring the petitioner as against the respondent 3 who was not at all qualified/eligible to enter in the competitive selection. He was not eligible even to file the application as per advertisement. The ineligibility went to the root of the matter vitiating the selection. True, that I. O. C. and Selection Board have acted bond fide on basis of the resident-certificate. But then when it has been held to be a false document, there is no question of upholding the decision of Selection Board which would be against the standards or norms laid down for such appointment by I. O. C. under directives from Union Government. In fact, such selection on basis of a false certificate would be illegal and discriminatory. ( 23 ) IN the wake of above discussions the learned counsel Shri Kochar urged, that the appointment of Manoharlal Adwani being illegal and liable to be quashed the petitioner Sable having stood No. 2 in the merit list, be appointed as Distributor for Indane Gas at Sarni, District Betul. We are not inclined to issue a writ of mandamus of such nature. ( 24 ) IN the result : m. P. No. 2296 of 85 filed by Ashok Kumar Sable is allowed. The impugued orders Annexure-P-4 dt. 18-4-85, appointing the respondent, Manoharlal Adwani for distributorship /dealeship for Indane Gas in Sarni of district Betul are quashed, being illegal and contrary to the mandatory conditions in the advertisement. We further direct, that it is up to the respondents 1, 2 and 4 to take a decision, as may be expedient in the circumstnaces, to act on the basis of previous selections and merit list already made, or to issue fresh advertisement and proceed further for the purpose. Respondent 3 Manoharlal Adwani shall bear his own costs and pay that of the petitioner and respondents 1, 2 and 4, Counsel fee Rs. 200/- if certified. The amount of security, if any, be refunded to the petitioner Ashok Kumar Sable. (b) For reasons stated above, the petition M. P. No. 3398/86 by Manoharlal Adwani v. Collector, Betul (respondent) is dismissed. The petitioner shall bear his own cost and pay that of the respondent. Counsel fee Rs. 200/ -. Order accordingly. .