JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition for writ a challenge is given by the petitioner to allotment of retail outlet dealership to the respondent No.5 by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. at Parbatsar in District Nagaur. 2. The sole contention of the petitioner is that according to the conditions prescribed, a preference was required to be given while making allotment of the petrol outlet dealership to the bonafide residents of Nagaur District but the respondents without any just reason deviated from the pre-condition by making allotment in favour of the respondent No.5 Narendra Jaipal, who is resident of Ajmer District. Learned counsel has drawn my2 attention towards previous notification Annexure-P/4, P/4(a) & P/4(b) and contended that preference was given to the resident of District in the said notification but in the instant case no preference has been given. The petitioner is resident of District Nagaur and stand at serial No.1 for the District Nagaur, therefore, he ought to have been given preference. 3. In reply, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 to 4 states that a bare perusal of Annexure-P/1 and new guidelines Annexure-R2/1 clearly shows that the eligibility criteria for award of retail outlet dealership are that the applicant should be an Indian National and as on the date of application, he should have completed 21 years and should be a minimum qualification of matriculation or recognised equivalent. Certain disqualifications and relaxation for reserved category have also been mentioned therein. However, there is no provision for any preference based on the residence of the applicant. It is further stated that guidelines issued by IOC, HPC and BPC have been concurred by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas vide its letter dated 19.8.2003. He has placed on record the letter dated 19.8.2003 issued by the Director, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas and letter dated 4.11.2003 containing copies of the text of advertisement issued by the Headquarters office of the Corporation. Learned counsel has cited before me the judgment of this Court in the case of Mrs.Lajwanti Chandel v. Union of India & ors. passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3840/2005 in which similar question arose and writ petition was dismissed. 4. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record. passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3840/2005 in which similar question arose and writ petition was dismissed. 4. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record. The counsel for the petitioner failed to show any condition regarding allotment of petrol outlet dealership in District Naguar to the residents of that District on preferential basis. He has only shown me the previous notification Annexure P/4, P/4(a) and P/4(b) of the year 1996-97. The reliance so placed by the petitioner is of no consequence. Looking to the latest guidelines Annexure-R.2/1, advertisement and Annexure.R.2/3, the petitioner could not make out any case in his favour. The advertisement has been issued as per policy and it has not been mentioned therein that preference shall be given to the person who are resident of District Nagaur. 5. The writ petition, therefore, has no merit and is dismissed at admission stage.Writ petition dismissed. *******