ORDER 1. Petitioner by filing the present writ petition has challenged the selection of Respondent No. 3 for grant of LPG distributorship under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak Scheme (for short “RGGLV”) for the location village Singheshwar in the district of Madhepura. The challenge is made on the ground that Respondent No. 3 is not the resident of the said location. 2. An advertisement dated 17.10.2009 (Annexure-1) was published by the respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (for short “H.P.C.L.”) inviting application for appointment of distributor(s) of L.P.G. under RGGLV for diverse locations including the aforesaid location figuring at Sl. No. 93. The applicant was required to be the resident of the location. The petitioner became an applicant for award of distributorship for the said location. Apart from the petitioner, the Respondent No. 3 as well as one Suraj Jaiswal besides others also became applicants. The candidature of Suraj Jaiswal was rejected on the ground that he was not the resident of village Singheshwar. Challenging the said order rejecting his candidature, Suraj Jaiswal filed a writ petition which was dismissed by an order dated 2.5.2011 (Annexure-3). After completing the procedure of selection including draw of lots, the Respondent No. 3 was selected. The petitioner obtained information under Right to Information Act wherefrom it revealed that the Respondent No. 3 was not the resident of Singheshwar. Different documents have been enclosed to show that Respondent No. 3 is resident of village Pandey Tola Jiwachpur in the district of Madhepura. It has been stated that no residence certificate was issued by the Block Development Officer, Singheshwar in favour of the selected candidate. Relying on the aforesaid documents, it has been submitted that selection of Respondent No. 3 is contrary to the provisions contained in the notice inviting application as well as the brochure governing the selection. 3. Heard Mr. Vivekanand Singh for the petitioner, Dr. Pankaj Kumar for the respondent H.P.C.L. and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra for Respondent No. 3. 4. Counter affidavit(s) have been filed on behalf of the official respondents as well as Respondent No.3. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent H.P.C.L. explained the selection process adopted by the respondent Corporation for award of distributorship. Such selection process is carried out in two stages. Sanjay Kumar Mishra for Respondent No. 3. 4. Counter affidavit(s) have been filed on behalf of the official respondents as well as Respondent No.3. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent H.P.C.L. explained the selection process adopted by the respondent Corporation for award of distributorship. Such selection process is carried out in two stages. The first stage is scrutiny of documents attached alongwith the application by Level-I Committee and the second stage is selection by draw of lots out of eligible applicants securing minimum qualifying marks i.e. 60 % for SC/ST category and 80 % for other categories. Having selected the candidate in the said draw of lots, a detailed field verification is carried out to verify the credential and related facts of the selected candidate whereafter Letters of Intent (LOI) is issued and the unit/distributorship is commissioned. While not denying the requirement of residency of the applicant of the advertised location as per the notice inviting application and the manual governing the process of selection, it has been contended that Respondent No.3 had submitted his application on 24.11.2009 (Annexure-B series) in which against column 7.3, he disclosed his address as resident of At + P.O. Jiwachpur, Panchgachia, District-Madhepura. Having noticed the same, the respondent rejected his application for award of RGGLV at Singheshwar and called upon Respondent No. 3 for submission of a representation in support of his claim by 6.1.2010. A representation was submitted along with the residential certificate dated 30.3.2010 (Annexure-B) certifying that the Respondent No. 3 is the permanent resident of village/Mohalla Singheshwar in the district of Madhepura. Having considered the representation and documents filed along with the same, Respondent No. 3 was allowed to participate in the process of draw wherein he became the winner of the draw on 26.5.2011. Thereafter Field Verification of Credential (FVC) was carried out on 9.7.2011 (Annexure-B series ) in which the respondent found the land offered by the respondent no. 3 fit for construction of Godown and Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued on 2.8.2011. The Letter of Appointment (LOA) was thereafter issued in favour of Respondent No. 3 on 18.11.2011 (part of Annexure-B series). The petitioner could have filed a grievance application in terms of Clause 15 of the brochure for consideration and disposal but the petitioner did not choose to file any such representation before filing the present writ petition. 7. The Letter of Appointment (LOA) was thereafter issued in favour of Respondent No. 3 on 18.11.2011 (part of Annexure-B series). The petitioner could have filed a grievance application in terms of Clause 15 of the brochure for consideration and disposal but the petitioner did not choose to file any such representation before filing the present writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 while supporting the submissions advanced on behalf of the Respondent H.P.C.L. contended that his mother is serving as teacher in a Primary School. His mother purchased land in Singheshwar in the year 1985 and the family constructed a house on the said land (copy of the sale deed has been enclosed as Annexure-J). The Respondent No. 3 being unmarried son of the family is, therefore, rightly treated as the resident of Singheshwar. Drawing attention of the Court to the certificate issued by the Block Development Officer, Singheshwar, it has been submitted that the concerned authority has clearly certified that the house of the petitioner is constructed on the said plot located in village/mohalla Singheshwar since past several years wherein Respondent No. 3 resides with her mother. Having regard to the aforesaid, the Block Development Officer issued the residential certificate (Annexure-K) which has not till date been cancelled or modified. While filing application, the Respondent No. 3 gave out his address as Pandey Tola Jiwachpur in the district of Madhepura. The Respondent H.P.C.L. after being satisfied from diverse documents produced by the Respondent No.3 accepted him as the resident of the advertised location. There is no illegality and/or infirmity in such consideration of the matter by the respondent H.P.C.L. It appears that during field verification of credential (FVC), the respondent H.P.C.L. is obliged to verify the credential(s) including the residency of the applicant. During field verification, Respondent No. 3 produced the certificate issued by the Block Development Officer and the supporting documents on perusal whereof the respondent H.P.C.L. was satisfied that the Respondent No. 3 is the resident of the said location. 8. In the case of Bhagwan Dass and Another versus Kamal Abrol and Others (2005) 11 SCC 66 , the Apex Court considered the true import of the word “residence” in the context of grant of L.P.G. Dealership by the Oil Company. In paragraph 11 thereof, (at page 71 of the report), the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under: “11. 8. In the case of Bhagwan Dass and Another versus Kamal Abrol and Others (2005) 11 SCC 66 , the Apex Court considered the true import of the word “residence” in the context of grant of L.P.G. Dealership by the Oil Company. In paragraph 11 thereof, (at page 71 of the report), the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under: “11. From the aforesaid analysis it is apparent that the word “residence” is generally understood as referring to a person in connection with the place where he lives, and may be defined as one who resides in a place or one who dwells in a place for a considerable period of time as distinguished from one who merely works in a certain locality or comes casually for a visit and the place of work or the place of casual visit are different from the place of “residence”. There are two classifications of the meaning of the word “residence”. First is in the form of permanent and temporary residence and the second classification is based on de facto and de jure residence. The de facto concept of residence can also be understood clearly by the meaning of the word “residence” as given in Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edn. It is given that the word residence means bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place. Thus de facto residence is also to be understood as the place where one regularly resides as different to the places where he is connected to by mere ancestral connections or political connections or connection by marriage.” 9. Having regard to the ratio laid down in Bhagwan Dass (supra), it appears the applicant must be permanently residing in that place/location or has permanent abode in the said location/area. He should not have merely a remote connection to the place. The Respondent No. 3 has brought on record a certificate issued by the Block Development Officer, Singheshwar after enquiry certifying therein that Respondent No. 3 has a permanent abode in Singheshwar since last several years and ordinarily resides therein with her mother. The certificate of residence issued by the said authority has not been cancelled/altered/modified. An unmarried son who is not employed otherwise is generally expected to reside with his parents. The certificate of residence issued by the said authority has not been cancelled/altered/modified. An unmarried son who is not employed otherwise is generally expected to reside with his parents. Respondent No. 3 has explained in his counter affidavit that there is some joint family property of the father in village Jiwachpur which is located in the same district. The materials placed on record incline this Court to hold that the petitioner has a permanent abode in village/mohalla Singheshwar where he ordinarily resides with his parents. The respondent H.P.C.L. thus rightly treated him as the resident of the advertised location. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find substance in the challenge made by the petitioner to the selection of Respondent No. 3 for grant of distributorship under RGGLV for the said location. 11. The application fails. It is, accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.