JUDGMENT 1. - In pursuance to the advertisement dated 29.12.1997, issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. the petitioner also applied for dealership/ distributorship for retail out-let at Bagger Town, District-Jhunjhunu for petrol and diesel. After proper selections, a merit list was declared on 16.2.1999 in which name of the petitioner finds place at No. 2 whereas, respondent No. 7 Mr. Amit Gadia has been placed at No. 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging inclusion of name of respondent No. 7 in the selection list at No. 1, on the ground that Mr. Manish Gadia, the brother of respondent No. 7, was already having a distributorship of petrol and diesel at Jhunjhunu, as to such, under clause 5(b) of the guidelines issued by the respondent Corporation, the respondent No. 7 was not eligible for the above dealership. It has further been contended that respondent No. 7 was having a gross income of more than two lacs, which further makes him ineligible for the dealership. 2. Petitioner while relying on a sale deed entered into between Manish Gadia, the elder brother of respondent No. 7 and Tormal Harmukhram Charitable Trust, Jhunjhunu, by which, elder brother of respondent No. 7 had purchased the land including the petrol pump from the said Trust, has submitted that the above petrol pump situated at Jhunjhunu is being run by elder brother Manish Gadia. It has also been alleged that a report was prepared by three officers of the respondent Corporation, after inspecting the actual site in regard to working of the above petrol pump and the income shown by the respondent No. 7 and his brother, from which the above allegations are proved. 3. A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 7 and also the respondent Corporation. It has been contended on behalf of the respondents that only the land, where the alleged petrol pump is situated at Jhunjhunu, has been purchased by the elder brother Mr. Manish Gadia from the above Trust. However, the actual licence of the petrol pump was never in the name of the trust. In fact, the licence has been issued to a firm in the name of Jhandi Prasad Parmeshwarlal which have three partners and none of the partners are any where related to respondent No. 7. Licence still exist In the name of the above firm. However, the actual licence of the petrol pump was never in the name of the trust. In fact, the licence has been issued to a firm in the name of Jhandi Prasad Parmeshwarlal which have three partners and none of the partners are any where related to respondent No. 7. Licence still exist In the name of the above firm. Income assessment certificate has also been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 7. Existence of any report of officers of Corporation, as alleged, have also been denied. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties I have carefully gone through the entire material on record. 5. The main challenge in the present writ petition is on the ground that elder brother of respondent No. 7 was already having a dealership of petrol/diesel at Jhunjhunu, however, as has come on record, the same fact has been duly rebutted by the respondent No. 7 and documents have also been filed to show that dealership is not in the name of Manish Gadia, but, in fact, is in the name of the firm Jhandi Prasad Parmesharlal, which is nothing to do with the elder brother of respondent No. 7. An affidavit of Mr. Manish Gadia in this regard has also been filed. Secondly, the income assessment order for the relevant year has also been filed, as such, the allegation of having more than two lacs gross income can also not be accepted as alleged in the writ petition. Since the material has come on record to rebut the allegations made by the petitioner in so many disputed questions of fact and law, in my opinion, no interference is called for by this court under its writ jurisdiction in the present writ petition. 6. Accordingly, i find no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******