ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels for the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and the private respondent No.6. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the selection of respondent No.6 under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin L.P.G. Vitrak (RGGLV) at Kamtaul by issuing Letter of Intent in favour of the said respondent. 3. The facts of the case briefly stated are that pursuant to an advertisement published in the newspaper on 28.2.2011, the petitioner, respondent No.6 and others applied for appointment as distributor of L.P.G. under the RGGLV Scheme for location Kamtaul in Darbhanga district under the physically impaired group. At the stage of scrutiny, the respondent No.6, Sudesh Kumar Mishra, was directed by the respondent No.4, Senior Regional Manager of the Oil Company to furnish fresh affidavit specifying the land details regarding ownership by 7.5.2011. Earlier, by order dated 21.6.2011, the respondent No.4 rejected the application of respondent No.6 on the ground that he did not have land according to the advertised location. The stand of respondent No.6 is that he has filed all the certificates even after issuance of the letter dated 21.6.2011 and being satisfied with the same, by letter dated 7.7.2011 the respondent No.6 was informed that he had qualified for the draw for selection of distributorship and was invited to attend the draw to be held on 13.7.2011. In the draw for selection, one Smt. Alpana Kumari was selected. During the field verification, she was found to be ineligible as the land shown was in the name of her father-in-law and not in her own name. Thereafter, a fresh draw was held on 16.1.2012, in which the respondent No.6 was selected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a complaint on 28.12.2012 and, thereafter, he has approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.6 did not have land in his own name, rather the same was in the name of his father, Jagdish Mishra, and thus the respondent No.6 could not have been allotted the LPG distributorship. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.6 did not have land in his own name, rather the same was in the name of his father, Jagdish Mishra, and thus the respondent No.6 could not have been allotted the LPG distributorship. 5. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the advertisement dated 28.2.2011 clearly mentions the fact that the land should be in the name of the applicant or any member of the family unit which, in the case of married person, includes the spouse and unmarried children but does not include the father and thus the land of the father of respondent No.6 could not be considered as the own land of the respondent No.6 and he was, therefore, ineligible for being selected as RGGLV distributor. 6. It is the further stand of the petitioner that the land does not have direct connection with the public road and it is only subsequent to the advertisement that the respondent No.6 entered into an agreement for sale and thereafter a sale deed, which itself is conditional, and cannot be relied upon to make the respondent No.6 eligible for the grant of his distributorship. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no reliance can be placed by the respondents on the Industry Record Note on modification/clarification with regard to the selection process of RGGLV in the Manual for Selection-Revision-1 dated June 15, 2010, as the applicants are not supposed to know about any such Guidelines and they refer only to the advertisement which will govern the selection process and not any Guidelines. 8. It is further submitted that the Guidelines themselves cannot be treated as modified. The Industry Record Note dated 15.6.2010 has been approved by the high officials of the three Oil Companies, but there is nothing to show that the same has been approved by the Central Government prior to the advertisement and the selection process, rather there has been adoption of the terms and conditions of the Guidelines by the Central Government much later by the Circular/letters dated 24.7.2012 and 3.10.2012. Thus, it is the stand of the learned counsel that in any view of the matter no benefit can be derived from the said Guidelines so far as respondent No.6 is concerned and his selection relying on the same is illegal and invalid and fit to be quashed. 9. Thus, it is the stand of the learned counsel that in any view of the matter no benefit can be derived from the said Guidelines so far as respondent No.6 is concerned and his selection relying on the same is illegal and invalid and fit to be quashed. 9. In support of the aforesaid stand, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the fact that the advertisement dated 28.2.2011 does not incorporate the so called modification/clarification in the Guidelines issued on 15.6.2010 in the said Industry Record Note and rightly it is to be treated that the advertisement incorporates all terms which were then in existence and, therefore, such non-inclusion of the said terms in the advertisement cannot now be given effect to. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even under the Hindu Law, no coparcener of the joint family has any separate and individual interest in any portion of the lands belonging to the joint family and all the members have interest over each and every part of the land and it is not open to any member of the joint family to claim separate and individual interest over any portion of the land and thus the Guidelines are contrary to the principles of Hindu law. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent Hindustan Petroleum as also respondent No.6, on the other hand, support the action of the respondents stating that while the scheme under the RGGLV has been accepted and approved by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India in rural areas of the country they have also laid down the broad guidelines for selection of distributorships under the same and advised the Oil Marketing Companies to formulate detailed Guidelines and accordingly the Industry finalized the Brochure, Text of advertisement and application format on 11.8.2009 and forwarded the same to the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India. Pursuant to the same, a detailed scheme was framed. 12. It is further submitted that thereafter the first advertisement was made in the year 2009 under the scheme but the experience of the first phase of RGGLV locations brought out the need to provide certain more clarifications and carry out minor changes in the Manual for Selection of RGGLV. Pursuant to the same, a detailed scheme was framed. 12. It is further submitted that thereafter the first advertisement was made in the year 2009 under the scheme but the experience of the first phase of RGGLV locations brought out the need to provide certain more clarifications and carry out minor changes in the Manual for Selection of RGGLV. Accordingly, the Industry members deliberated the issue raised by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas of India on 11.5.2010 and certain decisions were taken by the Industry members vide letter dated 15.6.2010 and it was clearly stated therein that the changes incorporated therein will be the part of Manual for Selection of RGGLV which was signed by the top officials of all the three Oil Companies. 13. The further stand is that all the three Oil Companies are registered under the Indian Companies Act separately and each of them is independent to take a separate decision on the subject even if it agreed on the issues commonly in the Industry meeting. The H.P.C.L. has taken decision to implement the modification/clarification made in the Industry Record Note dated 15.6.2010. 14. It is also the stand of learned counsel for the respondent HPCL that it has been acting upon the said Industry Record Note in all the matters after issuance of the same and a similar stand was taken by it in C.W.J.C. No.23054 of 2011 Ghanshyam Kumar vs. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others which was dismissed by this Court by order dated 24.1.2013 and the facts therein were on similar footing to the facts of the present case. 15. In opposition to the same, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision dated 6.8.2013 of a learned single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.3107/2013: Sri Shiv Kumar Singh vs. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others along with other analogous cases, in which it was held as follows:- “On a consideration of the rival submissions made on this issue by the parties, it appears that the Industry Record Note dated 15.6.2010 (Annexure-6) was prepared by the functionaries/authorities of the three Oil Companies. It called for certain clarifications/modifications in the Manual for Selection of RGGLV. It called for certain clarifications/modifications in the Manual for Selection of RGGLV. Although it was resolved in the said Note that the above will be part of Manual for Selection of RGGLV but the same was only an internal decision or at best a recommendation for effecting alteration/amendment in the brochure/guidelines. The respondents have stated in the supplementary counter affidavit that the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas subsequently approved the note and permitted such modification/clarification/amendment in the guidelines for selection of RGGLV and regular LPG distributors by order contained in letter dated 24.7.2012 (Annexure C) and subsequently by another communication dated 3rd October, 2012 (Annexure-D). No material or document has been placed by the petitioner to demonstrate that the said Industry Record Note was considered and approved by the Government in the concerned Ministry and decision in respect thereof was issued to the Oil Companies prior to the publication of the advertisement in question. The respondents, on the other hand, have brought on record the two communications issued by the Government of India in the concerned Ministry permitting modification/amendment in the guidelines for selection of RGGLV. In doing so, the Government permitted to effect modification/alteration in the definition of family unit in the guidelines for selection of RGGLV and regular LPG distributor(s). This Court, in the light of the pleadings on record, would overrule the contention of the petitioner that by reason of Industry Record Note (Annexure-6) the relevant guidelines/brochure for selection of RGGLV automatically stood altered/amended. There is no controversy that if the amendment suggested by Industry Record Note (Annexure-6) is not held effective from the date it was drawn i.e. 15.6.10 then the petitioners would not come within the definition of family unit as contained in relevant guideline/brochure as also the conditions of advertisement (Annexure-1). It further appears that the petitioner brought out a new case of partition while making representation in the light of the communication dated 19.9.12 (Annexure-3) holding him ineligible and soliciting a representation by the applicant/petitioner. The theory of partition supported by partition document created in presence of Sarpanch was not stated in the application. A declaration is required to be made by all the applicants along with the application that there has been no suppression of fact and/or no information supplied therein was incorrect/false. The theory of partition supported by partition document created in presence of Sarpanch was not stated in the application. A declaration is required to be made by all the applicants along with the application that there has been no suppression of fact and/or no information supplied therein was incorrect/false. In the event of doing so, the applicant would be declared ineligible and struck off from the list of the applicants. For the reasons noted above, the Court finds no merit in this application, which is, accordingly, dismissed.” 16. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the earlier decision in Ghanshyam Kumar’s case (supra) was not brought to the notice of this Court in the case of Sri Shiv Kumar Singh (supra). It is further submitted that the decision in Shri Shiv Kumar Singh case (supra) also turned upon the fact that the respondent Indian Oil Corporation (IOCL) in all the three writ petitions had taken the stand that the clarification/modification contained in Clause-7 of the Industry Record Note was not incorporated/adopted by the IOCL and further that the decision taken in the Industry Record Note regarding the modification/clarification were incorporated in the Guidelines for Selection of RGGLV by the Central Government on 24.7.2012 and 3.10.2012. 17. Learned counsel for the respondents also relies upon a decision of a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court dated 12.3.2012 in W.P. (C) No.2253 of 2011: Smt. Pranati Priyadarshini Dash vs. Union of India and others, in which the Division Bench has relied upon the said Industry Record Note to arrive at its conclusions. 18. It is the further stand of the respondents that the land in question is joint family property standing in the name of the father of the respondent No.6, who has given his consent letter and the share of the petitioner in the said land is sufficient to qualify for the selection of RGGLV distributorship, which factual issue is not in dispute. 19. 19. It is also the stand of the respondents that before the filing of the application in terms of the advertisement, the Respondent No.6 had already obtained a long term lease of 15 years from the plot adjacent to the public road and subsequently a sale deed has also been executed and thus the condition regarding the land being approachable throughout from the public road or the private road was duly fulfilled even before the filing of the application. 20. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is evident from the decision of this Court in the case of Ghanshyam Kumar (supra) in which also the HPCL was the respondent that its clear stand throughout has been that the Industry Record Note dated 15.6.2010 immediately on its signing was adopted by the HPCL and it has been acting on the said Industry Record Note. 21. I further find that the HPCL is a Government company being a public sector undertaking of the Central Government which is duly incorporated under the Companies Act and thus it cannot be said that until and unless any decision taken by the company receives the approval of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, such decision cannot be implemented by the company. No such provision in the Memorandum or Articles of Association of the company has been brought to the notice of this Court nor such provision is likely to be present in the Memorandum and Articles of the company. Thus, irrespective of the stand taken by the Indian Oil Corporation in Sri Shiv Kumar Sigh (supra) the said stand cannot be enforced upon the H.P.C.L. which has taken clear stand that it has accepted the modifications/clarifications in the Industry Record Note dated 15.6.2010 with immediate effect. 22. Further it would be relevant, at this stage, to refer to clause 7 of the Industry Record Note dated 15.6.2010, which is in the following terms:- “There are instances where the applicant/member of applicants family unit is the joint owner of a plot of land along with other members of the family (ancestral property). In the advertisement published under para 4 (vii)- definition of own it is stated as under. In the advertisement published under para 4 (vii)- definition of own it is stated as under. “Own means having clear ownership title of the property in the name of applicant/family member of the Family Unit as defined in multiple dealership/distributorship norm. In case of ownership/co-ownership by family member, consent letter from the family member will be required.” Since there are many queries from the field on ownership/co-ownership by family member, it is clarified 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 our 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. If the consent letter from the other co-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 11 b.” 23. It is evident from the consideration of the said clause that it does not even modify the definition of the Family Unit as given in the brochure or in the advertisement nor does it make any change with regard to the requirement of having clear ownership title of the property in the name of the applicant/ family member of the Family Unit. The said clause is in fact a mere clarification, as specifically stated therein, that the ownership would include ownership/co-ownership in a joint family land, provided the consent letter from other co-owners of the land is obtained. All that the clarification says is that if the share of land in the name of the 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-owner of the land, the land would be considered for eligibility. 24. All that the clarification says is that if the share of land in the name of the 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-owner of the land, the land would be considered for eligibility. 24. In my view the same has to be treated as a clarification, as a co-ownership in a land particularly in the case of a joint family land cannot be said to be a lack of ownership or title It means that the separate share of the coparcener of the joint family has not been divided by metes and bounds and thus it would be open to the respondents to have permitted such person with the consent of the other members of the joint family to have shown that land for the purpose of getting the dealership. 25. I am also of the view that the clarification is not such which changes the basic criterion laid down in the original Brochure giving the Guidelines regarding R.G.G.L.V. and is in fact in the form of clarification which could have been given at any stage. The said clarification even if not mentioned in the advertisement cannot have any adverse effect on the selection process. 26. I am further of the view that if the policy guidelines are laid down in a brochure by the authorities making the selection, then the mere fact that each and everything in the said policy guidelines are not incorporated in the advertisement does not mean that the authorities are disqualified from following the policy guidelines. As a matter of fact they are obliged to act in accordance with such policy guidelines. In such circumstances, it is for the applicants to make themselves familiar with any such guidelines. 27. I further find that the Industry Record Note dated 15.6.2010 also mentions the fact that clarification/modification shall form part of the Manual for Selection of RGGLV and the same having been immediately implemented by the HPCL there can be no occasion to exclude the same in the process of selection of RGGLV. 28. 27. I further find that the Industry Record Note dated 15.6.2010 also mentions the fact that clarification/modification shall form part of the Manual for Selection of RGGLV and the same having been immediately implemented by the HPCL there can be no occasion to exclude the same in the process of selection of RGGLV. 28. The petitioner is also not correct in stating that the Industry Record Note dated 15.6.2010 was incorporated into the Manual for Selection of RGGLV by the Ministry of Petroleum circulars dated 24.7.2012 and 3.10.2012, since the said circulars do not relate to the clarification made in clause 7 of the Industry Record Note dated 15.6.2010, rather they have further permitted the property belonging to parents and grandparents to be given for construction of godown, whereas the clarification dated 15.6.2010 merely permitted an applicants share in joint family property to be taken into consideration. 29. So far as the question of land of the respondent No.6 having passage through public road or private road is concerned, the same was taken care of by the respondent No.6 by entering into a long term lease dated 15.3.2011 before the filing of his application and subsequently the sale deed dated 10.2.2012 has also been executed with respect to the said land and thus there was never any ineligibility of the respondent No.6 on that count. 30. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid discussions, I do not find any merit in the writ application and it is, accordingly, dismissed.