ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels for the respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and for respondent No.3. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the respondents to cancel the LPG distributorship of respondent No.3 under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak Scheme (RGGLV) for village Gamharia in Madhepura District. The petitioner as also respondent No.3 and others had applied for grant of distributorship under RGGLV Scheme pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.2.2011 for location Gamharia in the District of Madhepura. In the draw of lot that was held, the respondent No.3 came out as the successful candidate. The claim of the petitioner is that the respondent No.3 did not have land in his name for the location on the date of allotment of LPG distributorship and thus the allotment is illegal. 3. In the counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.3, it is clearly stated that the respondent No.3 had submitted his application on 30.3.2011 and after submission and scrutiny of application, he was asked by the respondent HPCL to submit a consent letter from the co-owners of the land and in response to the same, he had submitted the consent letter on oath dated 9.5.2011 before a Notary of all the other co-owners. It is, thus, submitted that respondent No.3 fulfils the requirement in terms of the revised Guidelines issued under the Industry Record Note on Modifications/Clarifications with regard to the Selection Process of RGGLV dated 15.6.2010, in which it was clearly provided that if the share of the land in the name of applicant/family member of the ‘Family Unit’ as defined in multiple dealership/distributorship norm, meets the requirement including the dimensions required and he has obtained consent letter from the other co-owners of the land (family members from joint family), the land should be considered for eligibility and if the consent letter from the other owners of the land is not attached as part of the affidavit, the same should be asked for when the letter is sent to the applicant in format 11b. 4. 4. It is also the stand of respondent No.3 that after submission and scrutiny of his application, he was asked by HPCL to submit consent letter from the co-owners by letter dated 22.4.2011 and in response to the same, the consent letters had been submitted and thus, the respondent No.3 did have the land of the dimension as per the norms laid down in the guidelines. 5. Learned counsel for HPCL also supports the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for respondent No.3 and submits that in the present matter the authorities have acted in terms of the Guidelines as modified on 15.6.2010 and after finding that the respondent No.3 is duly qualified in terms of the RGGVL, he was permitted to participate in the draw and thus his selection is valid. 6. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the land belonging to the joint family and subsequently partitioned did have the requisite dimensions, though an attempt was made by learned counsel for the petitioner to show that while the respondent No.3 had mentioned Plot Nos. 835 and 836 in his application, he was allotted only 62 decimals in Plot No.836 and the family partition was also subsequent to the advertisement, i.e., 18.7.2011. 7. On a consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. The modified guidelines clearly stipulate that in case the lands belong to the joint family then on the consent of the other members of the joint family, the same would be treated as belonging to the family unit. It is also provided that if there is any deficiency in the application then the candidate must be informed to rectify the deficiency by sending letters to him. The same has been done in the present matter and the respondent No.3 has supplied the consent letter by the other family members. The fact that in subsequent partition 62 decimals of land have been allotted to the respondent No.3 only from plot No.836 does not disqualify him, if he has mentioned both Plots Nos. 835 and 836 in the application, as the same belonged to the joint family at the time of application and consent letters of the other family members had been produced before the respondent Corporation. 8. 835 and 836 in the application, as the same belonged to the joint family at the time of application and consent letters of the other family members had been produced before the respondent Corporation. 8. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, this Court does not find any illegality in the action of the respondent HPCL. 9. The writ application is, thus, devoid of merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.