Manmohan Sarin ( 1 ) RULE. With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal. The petitioner by this writ petition, seeks a writ of mandamus, against the respondents to transfer the allotment of petrol pump/ retail outlet site at Vikaspuri, New Delhi-110 002 in her favour. ( 2 ) THE petitioner s deceased son late Rajiv Chadha had been selected in September, 1994, for allotment of a retail outlet site. Petitioner s case is that her deceased son being handicapped, was selected on merit for allotment. The allotment could not fructify as a Writ Petition bearing No. 4568/96 titled Sehkari Gramin. Sewa Samiti v. Oil and Natural Gas Commission, had been filed wherein the allotments of several petrol pump sites including that of petitioner s son had been challenged. On 29. 1. 1999, petitioner s deceased son, who had been impleaded as respondent was deleted from the array of respondents on the footing that allotment was on merit and was not vitiated on the grounds set forth in the writ petition. Following this no hurdle was left in giving effect to the allotment in favour of the petitioner s deceased son. It may however be noted that the petitioner s son in the meanwhile had expired on 14. 9. 1997. ( 3 ) THE question which falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner, who happens to be mother of the deceased, is entitled to succeed to the said allotment. Counsel submits, petitioner is an old widow, who is eligible and deserving. ( 4 ) RESPONDENTS oppose the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioner had concealed the factum of the death of her deceased son, who had been selected for allotment. On 29. 1. 1999, when order for deleting the name of respondent (her deceased son) in C. W. No. 4568/96 was passed, it was not revealed that petitioner s son had expired. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had duly informed the respondents in April, 1999, that her son had expired and the allotment be transferred in her favour. This would not make any material difference to the petitioner s case. Be it may, it is contended that even under the policy as reproduced in the counter affidavit, the petitioner is not eligible for getting the allotment on the demise of her son. This would not make any material difference to the petitioner s case. Be it may, it is contended that even under the policy as reproduced in the counter affidavit, the petitioner is not eligible for getting the allotment on the demise of her son. It would be worthwhile to reproduce the three conditions whereunder the legal heirs of a deceased allottee or who is the holder of letter of intent are entitled to have the letter of intent/allotment transferred in their favour. These conditions are reproduced as under: (I) If the LOI holders had made substantial investment towards acquisition of land and / or creating infrastructure, but expired or killed before the commissioning of the dealership/distributorship. OR (ii) If the LOI holder had made substantial progress in putting up the facility, but because totally paralysed or mentally unsound, etc. which rendered him/her ineligible for the dealership/distributorship.