Judgment This writ petition is filed, seeking directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the letter dated 30.12.2011, issued to the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Respondent-Indian Oil Corporation has issued notification inviting applications for allotment of Kisan Sevak Kendra retail dealership at Kodakandla village in Warangal District to the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste community and petitioner is one of the applicants for the said dealership. The application of petitioner is rejected by impugned letter, on the ground that the residence certificate was not enclosed. 3. As per the criteria notified by the respondent-Corporation in the notification, applicants have to enclose residence certificate in the proforma given in Appendix-C. According to the respondent-Corporation, the petitioner has not filed any such certificate, and at that place, she merely stated that the residence certificate has been enclosed. 4. It is the case of petitioner that she has obtained the community, nativity and date of birth certificate from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kodakandla Mandal and enclosed it along with the application, and inspite of the same, her application is rejected by impugned letter. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the Manager (Retail Sales) of the respondent-Corporation, while denying the allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that as the application of petitioner is not complete, it is treated as incomplete application, and consequently, petitioner was categorized as ineligible during scrutiny itself. It is stated in the counter that though it is contended by the petitioner that she enclosed the residence certificate, the same was not enclosed along with the application and the petitioner was informed of the same when she went to the Divisional Office for inspection of residence certificate after the cut-off date for submission of applications. 6. A perusal of notification issued by the respondent-Corporation clearly reveals that there is a requirement for enclosing residence certificate in the proforma given in Appendix-C. Admittedly, the petitioner has not submitted the residence certificate in the proforma as notified by the respondents. Though it is stated that the residence certificate was also enclosed along with the application, from the counter affidavit, it is clear that the petitioner did not enclose any such certificate before the cut off date notified for receiving applications. Though it is stated that the residence certificate was also enclosed along with the application, from the counter affidavit, it is clear that the petitioner did not enclose any such certificate before the cut off date notified for receiving applications. In the absence of any proof of filing residence certificate before the cut off date in the prescribed proforma, I do not find any illegality in rejecting the application of petitioner. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 8. As a sequel, WPMP.No.3268 of 2012 stands closed.