JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. The appellants of both the appeals have challenged the common impugned order and judgment dated 16th of January, 1995 passed by one of the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10962 of 1994, by which while allowing the writ petition the letter of intent dated 9th of February, 1994 as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition has been quashed. By the said letter of intent dated 9th of February, 1994, appellant, Shyam Sunder Singh 'Dhiraj' was given permission to open a retail outlet of petrol pump of I.B.P Company Limited on the recommendation of the Oil Selection Board. 2. The main grounds taken by the appellant are as follows :- (a) Without any notice to the appellant the writ petition has been allowed in favour of the writ petitioner-Respondent no. 6; (b) The Hon'ble Single Judge has erred in holding that the appellant, Shyam Sunder Singh 'Dhiraj' had not resided in the district of Begusarai for a period of five years, prior to the last cut-off date as mentioned in the advertisement and thereby wrongly held the appe!lant, Shyam Sunder Singh 'Dhiraj' as not resident of the district of Begusarai (Bihar). 3. The brief facts of the case lie in a narrow compass, as stated below:- An advertisement dated 5th of February, 1993 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) was published in the newspaper for grant of retail outlet dealership in the district of Begusarai by the I.B.P Company Limited. One of the eligibility criteria mentioned therein was that the applicant should be a resident of the district of Begusarai, at least for five years, immediately prior to the date of application. The appellant, Shyam Sunder Singh 'Dhiraj' along with other, including the writ petitioner Respondent no. 6 applied in pursuance of the said advertisement for retail outlet dealership. Interviews were held by the Oil Selection Board. The Oil Selection Board forwarded the merit list to I.B.P Company Limited. The name of the appellant, Shyam Sunder Singh 'Dhiraj' being no. 1 in the merit list, vide letter dated 9th of February, 1994 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), the letter of intent was given in favour of the appellant for opening a retail outlet dealership in the district of Begusarai. 4. The writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 10962/94 was filed by the writ petitioner-Respondent no. 1 in the merit list, vide letter dated 9th of February, 1994 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), the letter of intent was given in favour of the appellant for opening a retail outlet dealership in the district of Begusarai. 4. The writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 10962/94 was filed by the writ petitioner-Respondent no. 6 challenging the aforesaid letter of intent dated 9th of February, 1994 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). The following grounds were made and urged by the writ petitioner before the Hon'ble Single Judge: - (i) (Appellant) Shyam Sunder Singh 'Dhiraj' is not a resident of the district of Begusarai. He belongs to the district of Patna. Thereby he is not eligible for grant of retail outlet dealership in the district of Begusarai in terms with the advertisement dated 5th of February, 1993; (ii) Writ petitioner-Chandra Bhushan Singh (respondent no. 6 herein) being Engineering Graduate was entitled for preference over others, in terms with the advertisement, particularly he being a resident of the district of Begusarai. 5. It seems that a counsel of this Court appeared at the admission stage and accepted notice on behalf of the appellant, Shyam Sunder Singh 'Dhiraj'. The counsel took time to file counter affidavit on behalf of the said appellant but did not choose to file the counter affidavit. In fact no power had also been filed by the said counsel, who accepted the notice on behalf of the appellant, Shyam Sunder Singh 'Dhiraj'. It further seems that the Oil selection Board was treated to be not a necessary party, thereby without notice to them, the writ petition was decided by the Hon'ble Single Judge vide impugned order and judgment dated 16th of January, 1995 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10962 of 1994 in favour of the writ petitioner-respondent no. 6. 6. The Hon'ble Single Judge has decided the writ petition solely on one ground, namely, that the appellant, Shyam Sunder Singh 'Dhiraj' is not a resident of the district of Begusarai and thereby not eligible in accordance with the advertisement for grant of retail outlet dealership. It was on this ground the letter of intent dated 9th of February, 1994 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) has been set aside by the Hon'ble Single Judge. 7. It was on this ground the letter of intent dated 9th of February, 1994 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) has been set aside by the Hon'ble Single Judge. 7. One letters patent appeal (L.P.A. No. 26/95) has been filed by the appellant, Shyam Sunder Singh 'Dhiraj' in whose favour the intent letter was issued for opening a retail outlet dealership in the district of Begusarai. Another letters patent appeal (L.P.A. No. 46/95) has been filed on behalf of the Senior Divisional Manager of the I.B.P. Company Limited. One of the ground taken therein is that the writ petition was allowed without any notice to the appellant, Shyam Sunder Singh 'Dhiraj' and without any notice to the Oil Selection Board, on whose recommendation the retail outlet dealership was granted in favour of the appellant, Shyam Sunder Singh 'Dhiraj'. The other ground that has been taken by both the appellants is that the appellant, Shyam Sunder Singh 'Dhiraj' was resident of the district of Begusarai for a period of five years, prior to the date of application, which is evident from Annexure-1 to the Letters Patent Appeal No. 26/95, a residence certificate dated 29th of April, 1993 granted by the Block Development Officer, Begusarai Block. Thereby it was argued that the Hon'ble Single Judge has given a wrong finding relating to residence of appellant, Shyam Sunder Singh 'Dhiraj'. It was further argued that in writ jurisdiction the Court should not have decided the disputed question of fact, whether the appellant, Shyam Sunder Singh 'Dhiraj' was a resident for five years of the district of Begusarai or not. 8. As one of the ground made by the appellant is that the appellant, Shyam Sunder Singh 'Dhiraj' and the Oil Selection Board were not heard, while the writ petition was disposed of, detailed hearing we have given to the counsel for the appellant, Shyam Sunder Singh 'Dhiraj' and to the counsel appearing on behalf of the another appellant (I.B.P. Limited), to substantiate that the appellant Shyam Sunder Singh 'Dhiraj' was a resident of Begusarai district for a period of five years, prior to the date of application. We have also heard the counsel, who appeared on' behalf of the writ petitioner (respondent no. 6) namely, Chandra Bhushan Singh and the counsel, who appeared on behalf of the Oil Selection Board (respondent no. 5). 9. We have also heard the counsel, who appeared on' behalf of the writ petitioner (respondent no. 6) namely, Chandra Bhushan Singh and the counsel, who appeared on behalf of the Oil Selection Board (respondent no. 5). 9. The main contention of the appellant, Shyam Sunder Singh 'Dhiraj' is that he was a resident of the district of Begusarai for a period of five years, prior to the date of application. To that effect, a certificate dated 29th of April, 1993 (Annexure-1 to the L.P.A. No. 26/95) was granted by the Block Development Officer, Begusarai Block. The said certificate having not been declared as forged or fabricated, the Court cannot give a different finding that the appellant, Shyam Sunder Singh 'Dhiraj' does not belong to the said district of Begusarai. Similar argument was advanced by the other appellant, i.e., on behalf of the I.B.P. Company Limited. 10. Counsel for the writ petitioner-Respondent no. 6 has filed intervention petition making therein detailed statement to which reply has been filed by the appellant. Counsel for the writ petitioner-Respondent no. 6 submitted that on the basis of different evidences and averments made by him it is clear that the appellant, Shyam Sunder Singh 'Dhiraj' was not a resident of the district of Begusarai and the certificate dated 29th of April, 1993 granted by the Block Development Officer was a collusive one, as he was holding a political post earlier. 11. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Oil Selection Board submitted that they are recommendatory body and on the basis of the residential certificate they have recommended the name of the appellant, Shyam Sunder Singh 'Dhiraj'. 12. For the purpose of proper appreciation of the case, I am giving hereunder the extract of the finding of fact given by the Hon'ble Single Judge to come to the conclusion that the appellant, Shyam Sunder Singh 'Dhiraj' is not a resident of the District of Begusarai. "On perusal of Annexure-2, advertisement, I find that there is mention in sub-clause (gha) of clause 2 that the candidate should have been resident of district of Begusarai for at least 5 years preceding the date of filing of application in pursuance of the advertisement. Several sub-clauses of clause 2 indicate that a candidate should fulfil certain terms and conditions laid down therein; and clause (gha) lays down one of the conditions. Several sub-clauses of clause 2 indicate that a candidate should fulfil certain terms and conditions laid down therein; and clause (gha) lays down one of the conditions. Sub-clause (kha) (ii) of clause 3 further shows that preference will be given to unemployed Engineering Graduate. The petitioner has made averment in the writ petition that respondent no. 6 does not belong to Begusarai district. In paragraph 24 of the writ petition it has been specifically mentioned that respondent no. 6 is a resident of village Marachi (Mokameh) within the district of Patna and his name also figures in the voter list of Mokameh Assembly Constituency, booth no. 73, serial no. 96 and his wife's name is at serial no. 97. This is supported by Annexure-7, photo copy of voter list. It is further asserted that respondent no. 6 had filed nomination paper in the year 1991 for Lok Sabha seat and in the nomination paper he had given residential address as resident of village Marachi, P.S. Marachi, district, Patna and similarly when he filed nomination in Assembly election in the year 1990 he had mentioned his residence at village Marachi, district Patna. Respondent no. 6 has not appeared to say specifically that these assertions about his residence being of that at Marachi, district Patna is incorrect. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2, no doubt, there is general denial that the facts stated in the writ petition are wrong but the counter affidavit does not specifically say as to what is the place of residence of respondent no. 6. Annexure-5, which is a letter of intent issued by respondent no. 2 itself shows that it had been sent to respondent no. 6 from his address of Marachi (Makameh), district Patna. From his address given in Annexure-5 it appears that even respondent no. 2 was aware of the fact that respondent no. 6 belonged to village Marachi (Mokameh), district Patna. Presumably this address was mentioned in the application filed by respondent no. 6 in response to the advertisement, Annexure-2. In my opinion, the qualification about residence as has been, inter alia, mentioned in the advertisement, Annexure-2 seems to be an essential condition for eligibility and the petitioner has been able to bring on the record enough material to indicate that respondent no. 6 is a resident of village Marachi (Mokameh), district Patna and not of Begusarai." 13. In my opinion, the qualification about residence as has been, inter alia, mentioned in the advertisement, Annexure-2 seems to be an essential condition for eligibility and the petitioner has been able to bring on the record enough material to indicate that respondent no. 6 is a resident of village Marachi (Mokameh), district Patna and not of Begusarai." 13. It is to be taken into note at this stage that the writ petitioner - respondent no. 6 in this petition for vacation of stay filed in L.P.A. No. 26/95 has made the following statement, which has not at all been denied by the appellant, Shyam Sunder Singh 'Dhiraj', though he has filed a reply to the same. The relevant extracts are given hereunder :- "4. (i) That the appellant is a resident of village Marachhi (Mokameh) in the district of Patna. In the revised electoral roll prepared in the year 1993 of 201-Mokameh Legislative Assembly constituency, village Marachi Panchayat Raj, Marachi, P.O. Marachi, P.S. Marachi, Anchal Mokameh, the name of the appellant appears at serial no. 96 and his wife at serial no. 97. (ii) That even in the revised electoral roll prepared in the year 1995 of the said village Marachi, the name of the appellant figured at serial no. 88 and that of his wife at serial no. 89. (iii) That the appellant has filed his nomination from the said Mokameh constituency. The list of the candidates who filed nominations had been published by the Returning Officer of the said constituency on 27.1.1995. The name of the appellant figures at serial no. 29 and in the address column it is mentioned at village and post office Marachi, District -Patna. (iv) That the appellant never lived at Begusarai. He has been a Youth Congress (I) activist and he ever remained at Patna either in the Government quarter or in his own residential house which he has built near east of Bahadurpur Housing Colony of the Bihar State Housing Board, adjacent to the new bye-Pass road, Patna. (v) That the appellant contested the assembly election from the said Mokameh constituency in the year 1980 and was declared elected. He was allotted Government quarter meant for the M.L.A.'s and he resided in the said quarter at Patna. He also contested the 1985 election from the said constituency and was again elected and remained in the Government quarter meant for the M.L.As. He was allotted Government quarter meant for the M.L.A.'s and he resided in the said quarter at Patna. He also contested the 1985 election from the said constituency and was again elected and remained in the Government quarter meant for the M.L.As. at Patna. (vi) That the appellant declared his place of residence in his nomination paper right from 1980 till 1995 at village Marachhi, P O. Marachhi, P.S. Marachhi, District-Patna. (vii) That during the said period 1980-90 he also held the post of Deputy Minister, Science and Technology; as State Minister (independent charge), Department of Urban Development; and Institutional Finance, and (viii) That on account of his continuance as M.L.A for a period of 10 years he is presently drawing pension in accordance with Bihar Legislature (Members' Salaries, Allowances and Pension) Act, 1960 as amended time to time, nearly a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month for life. He is also getting life-long free medical nursing, supply of medicines and facilities of admission into hospitals. In addition to these he is also getting free railway travel coupon for a sum of Rs. 43,000 (Approx.) every year for life." 14. From the aforesaid averments made by the writ petitioner-Respondent no. 6 in this petition for vacation of stay and the finding given by the Hon'ble Single Judge it will be evident that the appellant, Shyam Sunder Singh 'Dhiraj' has not denied the aforesaid factual aspects relating to his residence in the district of Patna. 15. So far as the certificate granted by the Block Development Officer dated 29th of April, 1993 is concerned (Annexure-1 to the L.P.A No. 26/95), according to me the same cannot be taken into account to decide the factual aspect as to whether the appellant, Shyam Sunder Singh 'Dhiraj' was the resident for five years prior to the date of application or not. It will be evident from the advertisement dated 5th of February, 1993 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) that the last date for submitting the application was 22nd of March, 1993. Enclosures, including the certificate, were to be sent along with the said application form. It will be evident from the advertisement dated 5th of February, 1993 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) that the last date for submitting the application was 22nd of March, 1993. Enclosures, including the certificate, were to be sent along with the said application form. The certificate granted by the Block Development Officer as contained in Annexure-1 to L.P.A. No. 26/95 having been issued on 29th of April, 1993, it is evident that the same was not available to the appellant, Shyam Sunder Singh 'Dhiraj' even by the last date of filing of the application (22nd of March, 1993). Thereby it is clear that the appellant, Shyam Sunder Singh 'Dhiraj' had not submitted any certificate relating to his residence along with his application. Further, if said residence certificate dated 29th of April, 1993 is to be taken into account, as on 29th of April, 1993, the Block Development Officer certifies that the appellant, Shyam Sunder Singh 'Dhiraj' was residing for last 'five years' in the district of Begusarai. If, 'last five years' period as on 29th of April, 1993 is to be taken into account, then it is clear that as on 22nd of March, 1993, (last date of submission of application) the appellant, Shyam Sunder Singh 'Dhiraj' had not completed five years in the district of Begusarai. Further .the appellant has not at all disclosed even in the present Letter Patent Appeals as to on the basis of which evidences/report such certificate has been granted by the Block Development Officer, when an allegation has been made by the other party that he being a political leader of a party has obtained the same collusively. 16. It is to be taken into note that the counsel for the appellant relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Jagir Kaur and another vs. Jaswant Singh (AI.R. 1963 S.C., page 1521), for the purpose of showing the definition of "resides". I feel the said decision is not applicable in favour of the appellant as the appellant, Shyam Sunder Singh 'Dhiraj' has failed to show that as to why he resided in the district of Begusarai and what was the tenure of such living i.e. for few days or years. 17. I feel the said decision is not applicable in favour of the appellant as the appellant, Shyam Sunder Singh 'Dhiraj' has failed to show that as to why he resided in the district of Begusarai and what was the tenure of such living i.e. for few days or years. 17. From the aforesaid facts, it will be evident and clear that the appellant, Shyam Sunder Singh 'Dhiraj 'has failed to show that he was resident of the district of Begusarai at least for five years prior to the date of application (22nd March, 1993). 18. In that view of the matter, I hold that the Hon'ble Single Judge has rightly given a finding that the appellant, Shyam Sunder Singh 'Dhiraj' is not eligible for grant of intent for the purpose of opening the retail outlet dealership in the district of Begusarai in pursuance of the advertisement dated 5th of February, 1993. There is no merit in both the letters patent appeals and thereby the same are dismissed. No costs. K. Venkataswami, C.J.-I agree.