1. The subject-matter of challenge in the present writ petition is the decision taken by the Dealer Selection Board (Assam and Manipur) on 22.6.2001 selecting the respondent No. 5 as the first nominee for award of dealership of LPG of Bharat Petroleum Ltd. ('BPL') at Moranhat in the district of Sivasagar under open category. 2. The pleaded case of the petitioner, in short, is that, the respondent No. 4, i.e., the Territorial Manager (Retail) BPL published a notice inviting application for LPG distributorship of Bharat Gas manufactured by the respondent No. 2 for various places under open category as well as under reserved category. The date of submission of the application was fixed within 24.11.2000. One of the condition amongst others, mentioned in the notice, stipulated that the gross income of the family of the candidate should not exceed Rs. 2 lakhs for the last financial year, i.e., 1999-2000, as specified in the advertisement. It was also made clear therein that the income for this purpose will include that of self, spouse and dependent children. 3. In pursuance to the aforesaid notice, the writ petitioner as well, as Respondent No. 5 had submitted their applications under open category along with other candidates for dealership at Moranhat. The petitioner was asked to appear in an interview fixed on 22.6.2001 along with original documents. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the Interview Board on the fixed date. 4. Subsequently, the Dealer Selection Board (respondent No. 1) short listed 3 candidates for Moranhat location under the open category placing respondent No. 5 in the first position, the writ petitioner in the second position and one Dhrubajit Chetia at third position. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid selection, the writ petitioner has challenged the decision of the Dealer Selection Board in the present proceedings as mentioned herein above. 6. Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. M. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P.P. Barua, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5, Mr. P.J. Saikia and Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 7. The main grievance of the petitioner is that, as per the condition of the notice, gross income of the family of the candidate should not exceed Rs.2 lakhs for the last financial year, i.e., 1999-2000. P.J. Saikia and Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 7. The main grievance of the petitioner is that, as per the condition of the notice, gross income of the family of the candidate should not exceed Rs.2 lakhs for the last financial year, i.e., 1999-2000. However, the gross income of the respondent No. 5 for the last financial year, i.e., 1999-2000 was more than Rs. 2 lakhs which has been suppressed by him. Since the respondent No. 5 is not eligible to submit an application for the dealership of LPG under open category, as his gross income exceed Rs. 2 lakhs in the last financial year, the selection of respondent No. 5 and placing his name against serial No. I in the list in order of merit is illegal and therefore his name from the list is liable to be struck off. 8. Appearing for the writ petitioner, Mr. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel referring to various provision of Income-tax Act as well as Assam Profession Tariff, Calculation and Implementation Tax Act, 1947 has submitted that respondent No. 5 being proprietor of the firm in the name and style "Brahmaputra Valley Construction and Suppliers" carrying the carriage and transport business on lease to various corporations like ONGCL etc. and therefore, the total income would be assessed under the income head "Profits or gains of business or profession." In the income-tax return submitted by respondent No. 5, it has become apparently clear that the gross income of the respondent No. 5 is the bill received from the various corporations, viz. ONGCL etc. with respect to Tankers, Trailers etc. from the vehicles is about Rs. 33 lakhs but the income taken into consideration by the respondent authorities, i.e., the Dealer Selection Board is the computed taxable income, i.e., net income of respondent No. 5. Therefore, respondent authorities erred in law as well as in fact, in considering the total income as net profit as per profit and loss account as has been shown as Rs. 1,20,000 from the business and from M/s. Brahmaputra Valley Traders as Rs. 50,196.36 insofar the eligibility criteria mentioned in the Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 9. The respondent No. 5, on the other hand, by filing an affidavit-in-opposition controverted the averments made in the writ petition. 1,20,000 from the business and from M/s. Brahmaputra Valley Traders as Rs. 50,196.36 insofar the eligibility criteria mentioned in the Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 9. The respondent No. 5, on the other hand, by filing an affidavit-in-opposition controverted the averments made in the writ petition. Referring to the assessment order, it has been contended that "gross total income" of respondent No. 5 is Rs. 1,71,756.36, which is below the prescribed gross income of Rs.2 lakhs as stipulated in clause 6 of the eligibility criteria of the tender notice. At para 10 of the affidavit-in-opposition, it has been specifically contended that income tax authority had assessed his income for the year 1999-2000 at Rs. 1,71,756. Referring to the assessment order, it has been contended that the Income-tax Authority found the income of respondent No. 5 from vehicle and other business income, including income from partnership, namely, M/s. Brahmaputra Valley Traders as Rs. 1,70,196 and the income from other sources was found to be Rs. 1,560. Totalling Rs. 1,71,756 as the gross total income. 10. Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 has vehemently submitted that the writ petitioner has not questioned the assessment order made by the Income Tax Authority for the assessment year 1999-2000 in respect of respondent No. 5 assessing his gross total income as Rs. 1,71,756. It has been contended by the writ petitioner that Respondent No. 5, who owns trailer truck received bills worth Rs. 6,49,720 from ONGC, his gross income for the assessment year 1999-2000 could not have been less then Rs. 2 lakhs. Besides income from vehicle, Respondent No. 5, who has other business, derives income from these business also. Mr. Choudhury, therefore, submitted that as discernible from the pleadings, in the comprehension of the writ petitioner, the bills received from ONGC and other incomes should be construed as "Gross Total Income". Thus seems that the writ petitioner has misconstrued the term "Gross Total Income". 11. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4, wherein, at para 6, it has been stated as follows : "That with regard to the statement made in paragraph 9,10,11 and 12 of the petition the deponent states that the selected candidate (respondent No. 5) has submitted an affidavit dated 21.11.2000 stating that his gross income does not exceed Rs. 2 lakhs per annum. 2 to 4, wherein, at para 6, it has been stated as follows : "That with regard to the statement made in paragraph 9,10,11 and 12 of the petition the deponent states that the selected candidate (respondent No. 5) has submitted an affidavit dated 21.11.2000 stating that his gross income does not exceed Rs. 2 lakhs per annum. The respondent No. 5 has also submitted declaration of annual income from his business and interest before the Executive Magistrate, Sivasagar as Rs. 1,71,760 for the financial year 1999-2000. The respondent No. 5 submitted the copies of his Income-tax Return and Income-tax Clearance Certificate in support of his aforementioned income declaration. The selection of the respondent No. 5 was done based on the merit list published of the Dealers Selection Board on evaluating the candidates based on documents submitted and leading questions put to them (distributors selection process) of the Dealers Selection Board. It is further stated that the members of the Dealers Selection Board are eminent people of the society who have no relation with the respondent No. 2, 3 or 4. Selection done by them after giving equal opportunity to all the candidates who appeared in the interview." 12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. On the basis of the rival pleadings the issue which arises for determination is what constitutes "Gross Income" as stipulated in the notice inviting application. 13. To decide the issue as raised hereinabove, the gross income mentioned in clauses 6 and 9 of the tender form may be reproduced herein below: "6. Gross income. - The candidate should not have gross income of more than Rs. 2 lakhs for the last financial year, as specified in the advertisement. The income for this purpose will include that of self, spouse and dependent children. If the candidate is dependent on the parents, then their income will also be taken into consideration for computing the total income." "9. Gross Income. - The income for the purpose of eligibility, will include that of self, spouse and dependent children. If, the candidate is dependent on parents, then their income will also be taken into consideration for computing the total income. Please furnish an affidavit sworn before a Magistrate or Notary public containing statement of income (as per Appendix-A) in support of the claim. If, the candidate is dependent on parents, then their income will also be taken into consideration for computing the total income. Please furnish an affidavit sworn before a Magistrate or Notary public containing statement of income (as per Appendix-A) in support of the claim. If the income is 'Nil' in respect of any of the columns, it should be specifically stated and under no circumstances, any of the columns should be left blank. The income will include income from all sources such as salary, property, interest, dividend, business/profession/vocation) agriculture and other sources, if any. If the applicant is an Income-tax Assessee, the details of income as shown in the Annual income Declaration should conform to those indicated in the income-tax return for the relevant financial year and the Assessment Order of the Income-tax Officer thereon. If, however, the applicant is not an Income-tax Assessee then the details should be supported with other relevant documents some of which are mentioned below by way of illustration: (a) Gross Salary :A certificate from the employer(s) indicating the total emoluments paid. (b) Income from Property : Rent as declared and assessed for the purpose of tax. (c) Interest on Bank Deposits : Letter from bank(s) showing the actual amount paid/credited as interest. (d) Income from Business I Profession I Vocation I Shares & other investments I other sources : Certificate from Chartered Accountant in support of the income indicated under each of these heads will be required. The applicant may also be required to produce any other documentary proof in support of the income indicated. (e) Income from Agriculture : A certificate from Mamlatdar/Tehsildar stating out clearly the location of the agricultural land and the income therefrom." 14. The submission of Mr. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel is that the definition of gross total income as provided under clause 2(i) of Assam Profession Tariff, Collection and Implementation Tax Act, 1947 should be applied in the case, which, according to me, has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case, specially, the purpose for which the notice inviting application has been issued by the authority. On the other hand, as submitted by Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 5, section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act provides that "income includes profit and gain". On the other hand, as submitted by Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 5, section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act provides that "income includes profit and gain". Under Chapter VI-A of the Income-tax Act, in computing the total income of an assessee, the assessee is entitled to make deduction from gross total income. Gross total income is defined in section 80B(5) of the Income-tax Act which is quoted hereunder: "80(B). - ...............(5) gross total income means the total income computed in accordance with the provision of this Act, before making any deduction under this Chapter." 15. On conjoint reading of the above provision, I am of the view that depreciation, expenses, salaries as permissible under the provision of Income-tax Act, to be deducted from the gross total income and therefore, I hold that the gross income as defined under the Income-tax Act and as quoted above shall be applicable in the present case. 16. Hence, considering the aforementioned facts and the legal provisions, I am of the considered view that the writ petitioner has failed to make out a case in his favour. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.