JUDGMENT: D.D. SINHA, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the respective counsel. 2. In the present Writ Petition the challenge raised by the petitioner is in respect of Clause 12.2 of the Brochure on selection of Rajeev Gandhi Rural LPG Vitarak ( RGGLV). Clause 12.2 thereof reads thus: “Selection will be done by draw of lot out of all eligible applicants securing minimum qualifying marks. Minimum qualifying marks is 60 % for locations reserved under SC/ST category and minimum 80 % marks for all other category locations” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged Clause No. 12.2 on the ground that as per the Brochure, the candidate securing minimum 60% marks (reserved category ) or 80% marks ( for other categories) are held to be eligible for being included in the list of eligible candidates. The final selection would be made by draw of lots. It is contended that every candidate was to be given a Code Number and whose Code Number was taken out while drawing lots, was deemed to have been selected for allotment of LPG distributorship. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contended that the candidate with minimum 80% marks in open category and candidate with 90% marks would be treated equally though they are unequal and the selection is based upon luck. The procedure contemplated as per Clause 12.2 as well as 12.6, 12.7 and 12.8 therefore, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and are liable to be struck down. In order to support the contentions, reliance is placed on the decision of the Orissa High Court in the matter of Rajni Bala Das vs. Regional Transport Authority and others reported in AIR 2003 Orissa Page 28 as well as common decision rendered by this Hon'ble Court dated 21.9.2010 rendered in Writ Petition Nos. 815/2010 as well as 864/2010. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that in the instant case, the petitioner has applied for LPG distributorship in view of the Brochure published by the respondents. It is contended that on the day of submission of the application, the petitioner was well aware about the Clause Nos. 12.2, 12.6, 12.7 and other relevant clauses of the Brochure. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that in the instant case, the petitioner has applied for LPG distributorship in view of the Brochure published by the respondents. It is contended that on the day of submission of the application, the petitioner was well aware about the Clause Nos. 12.2, 12.6, 12.7 and other relevant clauses of the Brochure. The petitioner never canvassed grievance in respect of these clauses at the time of submission of the application and for the first time, raised the challenge to the above-referred Clauses by filing the present Writ Petition. It is submitted that the advertisement was dated 31st March, 2010 and the last date of submission of the application was 3rd May, 2010. On receipt of the applications, scrutiny was conducted as per the procedure stipulated in the Brochure including the procedure mentioned in clauses 12.2, 12.4, 12.5 etc. and the Field Verification Committee has also scrutinized the applications and found only four persons were eligible and qualified. It is contended that the entire process was over by 8th October, 2010. However, in view of the interim order passed by this Court, the letter of intent could not be issued. 5. It is submitted that in the instant case, the petitioner has taken a chance by submitting applications and at a later point of time, when was not selected, made a grievance against the clauses 12.2, 12.4, 12.5 etc. It is purely an afterthought and therefore on this short ground the petition needs to be dismissed. 6. The learned counsel for respondents further contended that the procedure stipulated in clauses 12.2, 12.4 12.6 and 12.7 etc. was sustainable in law, does not suffer from vice of Article 14 of the Constitution and India. 7. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. Perused the relevant clauses of the Brochure as well as the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. In the instant case, perusal of Clause 12.2 clearly shows that the selection was required to be done by the drawing of lots out of eligible applicants who have secured minimum qualifying marks i.e. 60 % for the locations reserved for SC/ST category; whereas minimum 80% marks for all other category locations. 8. In the instant case, perusal of Clause 12.2 clearly shows that the selection was required to be done by the drawing of lots out of eligible applicants who have secured minimum qualifying marks i.e. 60 % for the locations reserved for SC/ST category; whereas minimum 80% marks for all other category locations. It is, therefore, evident that the zone of consideration for eligible candidates meant for open as well reserved locations was created by virtue of Clause 12.2 who have secured minimum percentage of marks required as per Clause 12.2. And, therefore, by necessary implication, whoever had come within the zone of consideration of eligible candidates would be selected for allotment of LPG distributorship by drawing lots. We have no hesitation to hold that the zone of consideration which consists of eligible candidates was one class and the procedure for selection of candidate for grant of LPG distributorship, out of this one class by drawing lots was uniformly applicable to the whole group or class and, therefore, the said procedure was neither arbitrary or suffered from vice of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 9. So far as the decisions cited of the Orissa High Court as well as this Court (based on the decision of Orissa High Court), the facts of those cases and the present case, are entirely different. So far as Rajni Bala Das's case is concerned (supra), it relates to stage carriage permits. The Division Bench has observed in para 4 that Section 71 of the Act lays down the procedure in considering the applications for stage carriage permit by RTA. So far as Rajni Bala Das's case is concerned (supra), it relates to stage carriage permits. The Division Bench has observed in para 4 that Section 71 of the Act lays down the procedure in considering the applications for stage carriage permit by RTA. Clause(d) of Subsection 3 of Section 71 provides that RTA shall in considering the applications have regard the following matters, namely (i) financial stability of the applicant (ii) satisfactory performance as stage carriage operator including payment of tax if the applicant is or has been an operator of stage carriage service; and (iii) such other matters as may be prescribed by the State Government; Provided that, other conditions being equal preference shall be given to applications for permit from (i) State transport undertakings (ii) Cooperative societies registered or deemed to have been registered under any enactment for the time in force; or (iii) ex-servicemen; It is necessary to consider the observations made by the Division Bench in Paragraph 4 of the said judgment, which reads thus: “ Section 72 of the Act provides that subject to the provisions of Section 71, the R.T.A. may on an application made to it under Section 70, grant a stage carriage permit in accordance with the application or with such modifications as it deems fit or refuse to grant such a permit. Subsection (1) of Section 80 states that an application for permit of any kind may be made at any time. Subsection (2) of section 80 lays down that a R.T.A. shall not ordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit of any kind made at any time under the Act provided further that where a R.T.A. refuses an application for the grant of permit of an kind, it shall give the applicant in writing its reasons for the refusal of the same and an opportunity of being heard in the matter .” 10. The decision of the Orissa High Court in view of the above-referred facts, will have no bearing so far as the issue in question, is concerned. In the said case, grant of permit was based on the applicant fulfilling the criteria mentioned therein and preference was required to be given to the State Transport Undertaking, Cooperative Societies, Ex servicemen in the contingencies mentioned therein. In the said case, grant of permit was based on the applicant fulfilling the criteria mentioned therein and preference was required to be given to the State Transport Undertaking, Cooperative Societies, Ex servicemen in the contingencies mentioned therein. In the said case, the eligibility criteria for grant of permit was required to be considered by the authorities strictly on the basis of procedure mentioned therein and eligibility was required to be judged on the basis of fulfillment of conditions mentioned in the provisions of the Act. There was no provision in the said Act for creation of zone of consideration of the eligible candidates, out of which the candidate could be selected for grant of permit. In the instant case, the zone of consideration of eligible candidates is created in view of Clause 12.2 of the Brochure and the selection for allotment of LPG distributorship is required to be made by drawing lots. The procedure of selection by drawing lot was made applicable to the entire class of candidates who come under the zone of consideration and, therefore, the said procedure, in our view, cannot be said to be either discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The decisions of Orissa High Court as well as this Court for the reasons stated hereinabove, does not help the petitioner. 11. The procedure of selecting the candidate by drawing lots, in our view, eliminates arbitrariness and favoritism. Clause 12.2 of the Brochure creates a class of meritorious candidates who have secured minimum 80% / 60% marks for respective locations and out of this class of eligible candidates one is selected by drawing lots for allotment of LPG distributorship without compromising the aspect of merit and also eliminates arbitrariness and favoritism. The said procedure, in our view, is just and proper for allotment of LPG distributorship. 12. Similarly, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that the petitioner who was fully aware of Clause 12.2 and other clauses of the Brochure without any demur submitted the application to the authorities for allotment of LPG distributorship. This conduct of the petitioner clearly demonstrates that when petitioner had submitted his application he had no grievance about clause 12.2 and other clauses of the Brochure. This conduct of the petitioner clearly demonstrates that when petitioner had submitted his application he had no grievance about clause 12.2 and other clauses of the Brochure. However, at later point of time, when the petitioner was not selected for allotment of LPG distributorship, the petitioner raised the grievance about the procedure stipulated in Clause 12.2, about which he did not raise grievance at the time of submission of his application. We want to express that Court should discourage such a practice. If the petitioner really had a legitimate grievance as regards Clause 12.2, the petitioner instead of submitting applications for allotment of LPG distributorship, should have approached this Court at the threshold. However, the conduct of the petitioner is otherwise and, therefore, on this sole ground also, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the petition being misconceived and devoid of substance, the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. Rule discharged.