JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J. The above titled matters relate to allotment of L.P.G. Gas Distributorship at Nadaun in District Hamirpur (HP). 2. According to Shri Pardeep Kumar petitioner in CWP No.6399 of 2010, the respondents in pursuance of the guidelines dated 1.4.1997 invited the applications for the distributorship by way of advertisement which was published in English newspaper, Punjab Kesari and Dainik Tribune, the newspapers of repute on 20.12.1997/18.5.1998. The same was also re-advertised on 23.8.2000 in the newspapers. One of the advertisements was published in The Tribune on 23.8.2000, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure P-1, whereby the applications were invited for company owned Retail Outlets at sites owned by the company/leased to the company at various locations in the States of Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir and including Nadaun in Himachal Pradesh. Pursuant to the advertisement aforesaid; the Dealer Selection Board (DSB) conducted the interview on 27.1.2002 and 28.1.2002 and short-listed the candidates in order of merit and declared the results on 29.1.2002. One Shri Vinod Thakur was placed at Sr. No.1 and Shri Surinder Kumar at Sr. No.2 in the short-listed candidates. 3. The selection of Shri Vinod Thakur was found against the norms, arbitrary and illegal, as such it was challenged by Shri Surinder Kumar by filing CWP No.242 of 2002, on 18.2.2002, before this Court on the ground that as per the eligibility criteria for the award of dealership/ distributorship under ‘open category’, the gross income of the candidate should not have been more than rupees two lacs, for the last financial year, including that of spouse and dependent children. 4. Since Shri Vinod Thakur suppressed the material details regarding his income, which were essential for him to mention in his application, the notices were ordered to be issued and this Court also passed the interim order Annexure P-2. Ultimately, this writ petition was disposed of alongwith other connected matters vide order dated 21.4.2003 in terms of paras 57 and 58 of judgment passed by the Apex Court in Onkar Lal Bajaj and others v. Union of India and others, (2003) 2 SCC 673 , copy whereof is Annexure P-4. Ultimately, this writ petition was disposed of alongwith other connected matters vide order dated 21.4.2003 in terms of paras 57 and 58 of judgment passed by the Apex Court in Onkar Lal Bajaj and others v. Union of India and others, (2003) 2 SCC 673 , copy whereof is Annexure P-4. (ii) It is also contended that on 20.12.2002 the allotment in favour of Shri Vinod Thakur for Nadaun L.P.G. distributorship alongwith 413 tainted allotments, was referred to the Committee constituted by the Apex Court for examination of the facts and records, to determine whether same was made on merits and not as a result of political or extraneous considerations. (iii) After affording hearing and considering the material placed on record and exchange of affidavits by the respective parties, the Committee found that the allotment in favour of Vinod Thakur with respect to the above retail distributorship was not on merit. Accordingly, based upon the report of the Committee, the Supreme Court on 19.7.2005 cancelled the allotment qua 178 outlets/distributorships including Vinod Thakur and directed the Companies to proceed on the basis of the recommendations given by the Committee, as per Annexure P-5. (iv) Shri Surinder Kumar, who was petitioner in CWP No.242 of 2002, had filed another CWP No.1647 of 2008 in this Court challenging the method and mode of advertisement as the respondents had intentionally and with an oblique motive advertised the location of Nadaun L.P.G. distributorship published in “Divya Himachal” and “Himachal Times” on 18.10.2006 (Annexure P-6) in which last date was mentioned as 17.10.2006. (v) The petitioner alleged that both the newspapers have negligible circulation in the ‘area’ where the location is situated and further that even the mode of selection and advertisement was to be made, as per Clause 3 of brochure Annexure P-7, by advertising it under the appropriate category in two newspapers, one English and one vernacular dailies having wide circulation in the ‘area’ where the location falls. (vi) Surinder Kumar aforesaid in this writ had alleged that he could not apply again on the basis of advertisement because Himachal Times (English) was published from Dehradun (Uttarakhand) having no circulation at all in Hamirpur District, though ‘Divya Himachal’ had circulation in Hamirpur, was not widely circulated in Nadaun which is 40 kilometers from Hamirpur. (vi) Surinder Kumar aforesaid in this writ had alleged that he could not apply again on the basis of advertisement because Himachal Times (English) was published from Dehradun (Uttarakhand) having no circulation at all in Hamirpur District, though ‘Divya Himachal’ had circulation in Hamirpur, was not widely circulated in Nadaun which is 40 kilometers from Hamirpur. His petition was admitted and after hearing the Court observed that it is only the petitioner who was aggrieved and nobody else came forward, as such allowed him submit his application pursuant to the advertisement made as far back as in October, 2006. Copy of the judgment passed in CWP No.1647 of 2008 dated 17.6.2010 is Annexure P-8. (vii) The petitioner now alleges that he was possessed of all the eligibility criteria as laid down in the advertisement and also challenged the mode and manner in which the advertisement had been published, depriving of not only the petitioner but also numerous eligible applicants due to lack of wide publicity of the site in question for the reasons best known to the respondents, therefore, he filed Civil Suit No.142 of 2008 on 1.10.2008 alongwith application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking interim relief. The respondents had contested the suit and filed their written statement, but petitioner’s application for interim relief was rejected. The respondents had contested the suit and filed their written statement, but petitioner’s application for interim relief was rejected. Later when he came to know that similar advertisement had been challenged in the High Court, was pending adjudication, he did not challenge the dismissal of his application any further, but when he learnt the fact that Surinder Kumar’s petition was allowed by observing that only Surinder Kumar and none other than him was aggrieved by the said advertisement, though the petitioner had been agitating for his rights by invoking the remedy to the best of the legal advice and on hearing about the date of personal interview on 12th to 14th October, 2010, he reached Shimla and filed the present writ petition on the grounds that the advertisement was not done in accordance with the terms contained in brochure, thus he was deprived of filing his application, seeking relief that the respondents be directed to conduct his interview pursuant to the advertisement issued on 18.9.2006 Annexure P-6 and further holding that the said advertisement is not in spirit of guidelines and the respondents be also directed to re-advertise to enable the interested persons to apply and participate in selection process of L.P.G. distributorship for Nadaun area in Hamirpur District. 5. The respondents offered a strong resistance to the petition, on the grounds that the policy Annexure R-1 was in vogue during the relevant period which was issued on 1.6.2006. It never mandated that the advertisement shall be released in the newspapers having maximum circulation in the area where the distributorship is located. Rather it was silent on this aspect. Further clause 3 of the brochure referred above speaks of the advertisement that it should be published in two newspapers, one in English and one in vernacular daily having wide circulation in the area. The ‘area’ has not been defined, therefore, its reference may be taken from the advertisement in dispute. It is also pointed out that as per clause 2(a) of the advertisement, the applicant should be Indian Nationality meaning thereby that any citizen of India residing anywhere within the country can apply for the distributorship proposed to be established in any State. The ‘area’ has not been defined, therefore, its reference may be taken from the advertisement in dispute. It is also pointed out that as per clause 2(a) of the advertisement, the applicant should be Indian Nationality meaning thereby that any citizen of India residing anywhere within the country can apply for the distributorship proposed to be established in any State. Therefore, release of the advertisement was only in the newspaper having wide circulation in the District concerned, which was complied with, thus no fault can be attributed to the said advertisement, therefore, the grievance of the petitioner as contained in his writ petition was also without any basis. He was also resident of Hamirpur wherein the aforesaid newspapers were in wide circulation. It is specifically submitted that the interim relief was not granted to the petitioner in civil suit which was not further challenged by him nor he had applied for consideration of his case by moving an application in the pending writ petition of Surinder Kumar and others in the High Court. The interviews were already held as per the directions of the High Court and the selection was made making it clear that the same would be subject to the decision in the writ petition. The similar directions could have been sought by the petitioner for the consideration of his case by the Selection Committee and now the petitioner is not entitled for indulgence of this Court after an inordinate delay and on merits his case for interim relief in the civil suit was declined, which cannot be now granted in this petition. It is further contended that the advertisement was made in two newspapers having wide circulation in the area and that CWP No.1647 of 2008 Surinder Kumar versus Indian Oil Corporation was decided on 17.6.2010. Pendency of the suit was not brought to the notice of this Court nor was in the knowledge of the Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has not acted with promptitude and has suppressed the material facts from this Court, therefore, not entitled for the relief sought. 6. Pendency of the suit was not brought to the notice of this Court nor was in the knowledge of the Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has not acted with promptitude and has suppressed the material facts from this Court, therefore, not entitled for the relief sought. 6. The respondents have also annexed Annexure R-3, certificate of the Himachal Times Group whereby it is certified that “Himachal Times” English daily had circulation of 1500 papers during the year 2006-2007 in Hamirpur District, whereas Hindi daily namely, “Divya Himachal” had wide circulation in District Hamirpur, as is evident from the report copy whereof is Annexure R-4. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. I do not find any substance in the submission made by the petitioner for granting any relief as the brochure Annexure P-7 clearly contained the terms for selection of L.P.G. distributorship. 8. Clause 3 of brochure provides the mode of selection of distributors and makes it abundantly clear that the locations identified are to be advertised under the appropriate category in two newspapers, one English and one vernacular dailies having wide circulation in the ‘area’ where the location falls also given in the respective website of the Oil Company. 9. The respondents are able to clearly establish the points taken, which could not be rebutted by the petitioner. The aforesaid newspapers which contained the advertisement had wide circulation in District Hamirpur to which the petitioner belonged and the said advertisement is inconformity with the brochure aforesaid. I do not find any breach of the said condition or in any way violative of Articles 14, 19 (1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, as alleged. Further, I also find no ground to grant any relief sought in this petition as the petitioner had failed to establish it in his interim application in civil suit filed by him with the suit. Even he had not applied before the Selection Committee aforesaid nor agitated his grievance further in appeal against the dismissal of his interim application. The advertisement dated 18.9.2006 Annexure P-6 in English daily newspaper “Himachal Times” is perfectly in accordance with the guidelines. Therefore, no interference is called for, hence the petition filed by Pardeep Kumar deserves dismissal. 10. Even he had not applied before the Selection Committee aforesaid nor agitated his grievance further in appeal against the dismissal of his interim application. The advertisement dated 18.9.2006 Annexure P-6 in English daily newspaper “Himachal Times” is perfectly in accordance with the guidelines. Therefore, no interference is called for, hence the petition filed by Pardeep Kumar deserves dismissal. 10. Further, In CWP No.6549 of 2010, the grouse of petitioner Shammi Soni is that he had applied for the distributorship of L.P.G. at Nadaun and had submitted his application alongwith complete particulars and necessary documents, i.e., Matriculation/Senior Secondary School Certificate indicating his date of birth but was not called for interview. 11. The respondents refuted the above allegations in their reply on the ground that he had only submitted the copy of the ‘character certificate’ showing his date of birth, which was not as per requirement of the advertisement. In fact, column No.1 (f) of the application format appended to the reply of the respondents provides for furnishing the date of birth, age on the date of the application and it was clearly mentioned that the applicant shall enclose attested copy of either Matriculation or Secondary School Certificate indicating date of birth in case of change of name to further enclose appropriate documents and the original were also required to be produced at the time of interview. Further Clause 19(b) and (c) contained the terms and conditions of the advertisement, which need to be taken note of and are reproduced as under: “19(b) Application for LPG distributorship can be submitted on a plain paper hand written or typed as per format given in the advertisement. No addition/deletion/alteration will be permitted in the application once it is submitted. Applicant should serial number all pages of the application including attachments and sign on each page.” (c) Applications received after the cut-off date including postal delay, and those without accompanying valid documents including application fee or incomplete in any respect will not be considered and no correspondence will be entertained by OIC in such cases whatsoever.” [Emphasis supplied] 12. Since the petitioner did not submit the required proof of age alongwith the application, it was rejected. The advertisement itself was unambiguous. 13. In fact, the applicant was required to furnish the copy of Matriculation or Secondary School Certificate indicating the date of birth. Since the petitioner did not submit the required proof of age alongwith the application, it was rejected. The advertisement itself was unambiguous. 13. In fact, the applicant was required to furnish the copy of Matriculation or Secondary School Certificate indicating the date of birth. The record was produced by the respondent-Oil Company in sealed cover which was perused and returned. Since no such documents were furnished, therefore, in my considered opinion, his application was rightly rejected and not called for interview. Therefore, his representation/ correspondence required no consideration. The merit-panel Annexure P-7 is in order, therefore, relief sought cannot be granted. Accordingly, his writ petition also deserves dismissal. 14. In CWP No.7350 of 2010, petitioner Promila Kumari Sandil seeks quashment of impugned selection dated 13.10.2010 and also allotment to the respondent-Corporation declaring it illegal and unconstitutional, precisely on the ground that she had applied for the distributorship of the said gas-agency at Nadaun. Her application was found in order thus called for personal interview to be held on 13.10.2010 at Shimla. On reaching Shimla at the place where the interviews were to be taken. It is alleged that she was not allowed even to enter inside the room where the interviews were being held. She was restrained by one Shri Sunil Thakur, an employee of the respondent-Oil Company and told her to go back as she had not brought the original documents even without looking into the documents to which she was having. Immediately thereafter she had shown these documents to one Shri Rajiv Sharma, but he also did not care for it. It is also alleged that even the members of the Selection Committee refused to take original documents and she was not interviewed. According to her, she had also represented to the Interview Committee vide Annexure P-4 on the same day alleging that Sunil Thakur was having some dispute with her family and a legal notice was served upon him through their Advocate and he did not deliberately allow to enter into the interview room and she had also shown original documents, i.e., original sale deed to the Committee even they did not care for it. 15. 15. It is also submitted by the petitioner that the selection and recommendation of the Committee granting dealership to 4th respondent, i.e., Himachal Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited was wrong and contrary to the terms and conditions of the selection brochure and various instructions issued in this behalf, thus violative of provisions of Articles 14 and 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 16. The allegations of the petitioner were refuted by the respondents that the petitioner did not approach this Court with clean hands and had suppressed material facts. In fact, she was interviewed, but at the time of interview, as per the requirement, she could not produce original ‘Tatima’ and Jamabandi for the year 2003-3004, photocopies whereof were appended with the application, which fact was admitted by her in her writing (Annexure R-1) given on the day of interview. It is also contended that the petitioner was not taken surprise as she was informed by sending interview letter Annexure P-3 by the respondents-Oil Company whereby it was clearly mentioned that she should bring original documents of all the enclosures as stipulated in the application form sent by her, non-production whereof may lead to disqualification. It is also submitted that there were large number of candidates who were declared ineligible for non-production of the original documents as per stipulation in the advertisement. 17. Further that the contention of the petitioner that she was not interviewed is also wrong and false from the document Annexure R-3 whereby her attendance had been recorded on the date of interview, which is also signed by her. She had infact appeared before the Interview Committee inside the room and she had signed the attendance sheet (Annexure R-4). 18. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I find that the right of the petitioner had emanated from the advertisement which appeared in the newspaper as stated above, which is a declaration made to the public at large, inviting applications and all the applicants are required to be adjudged by the requirement of the advertisement. Copies of the proof of the land, which were supplied by her with the application form, were of secondary evidence. Copies of the proof of the land, which were supplied by her with the application form, were of secondary evidence. Further, the requirement of the respondent-Company was to produce the original thereof to which she failed to produce, which fact is admitted by her by making an endorsement in her own hand on 13.10.2010, i.e., the date of interview when she was interviewed under her own signatures on the copy of ‘Tatima’ and Jamabandi. The petitioner was made clear that she should bring all the original documents of the enclosures stipulated in the application form before the Selection Committee non-production thereof would lead to disqualification. Thus she was not taken by surprise. She has alleged malafide against one Sunil Kumar who was also not made party in the petition. Otherwise also, I have found her allegations wrong and incorrect. She has suppressed material facts from the Court. Even the merit panel which is challenged is found to be in consonance with the guidelines which requires no interference, thus no relief can be granted to her. As such the writ petition is dismissed. 19. In CWP No.920 of 2012, petitioner Sunil Kumar has the grouse that he was not allotted the requisite marks, i.e., full 25 marks at the time of interview held on 13.10.2010 for the allotment of distributorship under the head ‘capability to provide land and infrastructure/facilities, sub head ‘Godown’, whereas he had submitted requisite revenue record. 20. Precisely, the petitioner wants this Court to review and re-adjudge the material which was placed before the Selection Committee and give preference/priority to him over the respondent-Corporation by re-appreciating the material/documentary evidence which is otherwise impermissible because this Court is not arrogating to itself the power to judge the comparative merits of the candidates and consider the fitness and suitability for allotment of the distributorship to petitioner. Otherwise also, the petitioner has no cause for his redressal as he failed to prove his case before the Committee. 21. The advertisement for the location in question, as already stated above, was released on 18.9.2006 by publishing in the newspapers. The applications were evaluated by the Committee of three members, as per the policy of the respondents-Company which was prevailing at that time. The marking was based on the documents appended to the applications by the applicant(s). 22. 21. The advertisement for the location in question, as already stated above, was released on 18.9.2006 by publishing in the newspapers. The applications were evaluated by the Committee of three members, as per the policy of the respondents-Company which was prevailing at that time. The marking was based on the documents appended to the applications by the applicant(s). 22. The petitioner, in the instant case, had offered the land comprised in Khasra Nos.49, 50, 51 and 52 (Mohal Ser Uparla) for godown. 23. Guidelines as contained in Clause 14 of the advertisement need to be taken note, which read as under: “CONSTRUCTION OF GODOWN/SHOWROOM ON THE SITE AS MENTIONED IN APPLICATION FORM The applicants who readily have suitable godown/land for construction of godown for storage of filled LPG cylinders and shop/land for construction of shop for Indane showroom for setting up of Indane distributorship or have a firm commitment from the land owner for purchase/lease or can arrange it are awarded marks. The details given alongwith the application alone will be considered for this purpose and the applicant will not be given any opportunity to offer any other land subsequently (even at the time of interview). For this purpose, the land “owned” by the family members as defined in eligibility criteria would also be considered as belonging to the applicant subject to attaching the consent of the concerned family members. Prior to awarding marks on capability to provide infrastructure, IOC will decide on the suitability of the godown land/godown as well as the showroom on the basis of the documents submitted alongwith the application. However after selection of the applicant, physical verification of the godown land /godown as well as the showroom will be undertaken. In the event it is found that there is variance in the details submitted with the application form and or the plot is not found suitable for construction of godown or the godown is not approved by Chief Controller of Explosives the allotment of the distributorship will stand automatically cancelled. Or after selection, if applicant for any reason is unable to construct Godown duly approved by the Chief Controller of Explosive on the land/godown indicated in the application and or Showroom as per the oil company’s standard layout on the land/shop indicated in the application, then the allotment of LPG distributorship made to the applicant will automatically stand cancelled.” [Emphasis supplied] 24. The word ‘owned’ according to the policy, means having clear ownership title in the name of the applicant/family member of the ‘family unit’. ‘Family unit’ of a married applicant consists of self, applicant’s spouse and unmarried son(s)/ daughter(s) and also his parents, but the petitioner had attached the documents with the application of the land which was offered by him, it was an ancestral property and consent of the family members have not been furnished. Further, in the said land apart from the petitioner Tarsem Kumar, his married brother and mother are reflected as co-sharers to the extent of 3/14th share in the revenue record, who otherwise do not fall within the definition of ‘family unit’. The selection guidelines provide marking under the heading “Capability to provide infrastructure and Facilities” and the same have been divided into three heads as below: a. Owns mean having clear title/registered sales deed of the suitable land/godown-based on documents -- 25 marks, b. Firm Offer having agreement to purchase suitable land/godown- based on documents -- 18 marks; and c. Can arrange-Based on documents -- 10 marks. 25. In the revenue papers aforesaid produced by the petitioner he was not having clear title of the plot/land offered, thus he was rightly awarded 10 marks under the sub-head (iii), i.e., ‘can-arrange’. The land offered for construction of godown in the application form at Clause 12(a) is ancestral and undivided property. The value of the property is Rs.2,03,49,000/- and the share of the petitioner comes out to Rs.43,60,500/- and in case the applicant is having property worth more than Rs.20 lacs then full 5 marks are to be awarded which was done, but in my opinion, the evaluation was rightly reviewed by the Committee after investigating his complaint, but despite that he failed to get merit. Thus, I do not find any force in the present petition, which also deserves to be dismissed. CONCLUSION 26. On the scrutiny of each of the petitions aforesaid and having heard the learned Counsel for the parties in the light of the factual scenario and law as discussed in detail, I find all the petitions without any merit, hence dismissed accordingly. 27. In view of the dismissal of the petitions, all pending applications and interim orders, if any, in the aforesaid petitions shall also stand dismissed.