JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the allotment of dealership/ distributorship and issuance of letter of intent in favour of respondent No. 4 Smt. Basant Boliyan wife of Shri Umrao Singh. 3. It has been contended inter alia that notwithstanding the respondent No. 4 Smt. Basant Boliyan was not falling within the zone of eligibility consideration as given in Annexure-1 for award of dealership/distributorship by Indian Oil Corporation under open category she was granted dealership, but the petitioner who was eligible yet his case was not considered by the respondents. 4. It was pointed out that clause Bpt. 1 of Annexure 1 lays down the criterion for award of dealership/distributorship under open category. Apart from providing the criterion of nationality, age, educational qualification, residence, the criterion was also included certain restrictions for allotment/ award of dealership/distributorship in favour of any person by considering the existing letter of intent held by him or such letter of intent held by his close relatives as mentioned in clause B as well as income criterion. The relevant portion for the present purpose reads as under : 1......... 2......... 3......... 4......... 5. Relationship : (a)....... (b) No person shall be awarded a new dealership/distributorship if any of the following close relatives of the person already holds a Letter of Intent or a dealership/distributorship of LPG/Kerosene/LDO/HSD/MS/ Lubricating Oil with any Oil Company : (i) Spouse (ii) Father/Mother (iii) Brother/Sister (iv) Son/Daughter (v) Daughter-in-law/Son-in-law (vi) Parents-in-law The candidate should not have income of more than Rs. 50,000/- perannum (last financial year). The income for this purpose would include income of the candidates, his/her spouse, dependent children put together. In case the candidate happens to be dependent on his/her parents, his/her parents income will also be taken into consideration for computing the total income. 5. With these criterion it has been specifically averred in the writ petition that the respondent No. 4 Smt. Basant Boliyan is in service as Primary Teacher in Panchayat Samiti, Shahpura, and her monthly income as per Certificate Annexure-4 at the relevant time was Rs. 1747/- per month which accounts for about Rs. 21,000/- annual income. Apart from this, the following averments have been made in para 8 of the writ petition : "Apart from her salaries respondents husband Shri Umrao Singh deals in explosive and is authoriszed dealer of M/s. IBP Co. 1747/- per month which accounts for about Rs. 21,000/- annual income. Apart from this, the following averments have been made in para 8 of the writ petition : "Apart from her salaries respondents husband Shri Umrao Singh deals in explosive and is authoriszed dealer of M/s. IBP Co. Ltd., bearing License No. 1736/36/993/92. Income from this source alone is more than 2 lacs per annum. Not only this Respondent No. 4's husband is owner of two trucks bearing No. R.S.E. 7000 and RJE 711 and one Ambassador Taxi Car and one Jeep bearing N. GBQ 1674. Both the truck and Taxi Car and Jeep is plied on hire and reward and earns a fortune of at least 1.00 lacs PA.. Not only this he is a owner of two sets of Tractor & Compressor and one set of Boring Machine which fetch him at least 2 lacs PA.. Umrao Singh is also having in about 100 bighas of agriculture land in Shahpura and Vicinage earning a fortune of Rs. 60,000/- PA.. Not only this respondent No. 4's husband's elder brother Shri Pratap Singh who is a member of joint family is holding a top rank post in Coal India Ltd. earning at least 1.00 lac rupees per annum. Thus from all the above mentioned sources the annual Income of Respondent No. 4 is about 7 lacs PA. which exceeds the limit of Rs. 50,000/- PA. and as such she was and is not entitled to letter of intent for establishment of Petrol/Diesel outlet in pursuance of advertisement Annex-1." 6. It is clear that only such income of the applicant or his close relative 30 can be considered which was current at the time of making declaration. No income derived from a source which came into existence subsequent to grant of letter of intent cannot have any relevance or considering fulfilment of conditions as on the date of grant. 7. From the aforesaid averments, it is clear that the license for explosive was given to husband of respondent somewhere in 1992, whereas the Letter of Intent was given to the petitioner much before in 1990. 7. From the aforesaid averments, it is clear that the license for explosive was given to husband of respondent somewhere in 1992, whereas the Letter of Intent was given to the petitioner much before in 1990. Any income which is attributed to be earned from the business set up or firm and any source which came into existence in the year 1992 cannot have any nexus with the current income of the respondent No. 4 combined with that of her husband at the time of issuance of Letter of Intent in the year 1990. The income of husband's brother is wholly irrelevant. 8. It cannot be said that the income of respondent No. 4 and her husband jointly was Rs. 50,000/- or more when the Letter of Intent was issued in the year 1990 on the basis of averments made in petition itself. Even if we assume the agricultural income which is stated to be Rs. 20,000/- per annum, and the income of respondent No. 4 is clubbed, it does not exceed Rs. 50,000/- at the relevant time. Therefore, the only contention by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 4 was not eligible on the basis of Income Criterion fails. Apart from this, no other contention has been so raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. In that view of the matter the instant writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed with cost which is assessed at Rs. 3000/-.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******