Judgment V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the dismissal of a Writ Petition filed by the appellant, challenging the refusal of the respondents to award L.P.G distributorship to him. 2. We have heard Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Krishna Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. On 16.08.2000, the respondents issued an advertisement in the newspapers inviting applications for the award of L.P.G distributorship. Out of the candidates who applied, 43 persons, were sent call letters on 19.01.2004. The selection committee met on 07.02.2004 and short-listed three candidates by name (i) Glory Jeeva Rita, (ii) C.M. Rajan (the appellant herein) and (iii) E. Perumal Kumar in the order of priority. 4. Thereafter, a field investigation was conducted in respect of all the three persons and a report was sent on 16.02.2004 and on the basis of the field investigation report, a Letter of Intent was issued to the person who ranked first namely, Glory Jeeva Rita. 5. Challenging the Letter of Intent issued to Glory Jeeva Rita, the appellant herein filed a Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.6347 of 2004. An interim order was granted on 27.04.2004 in the said writ petition, directing the respondents to maintain status quo. However, it was later vacated on 26.05.2004, with a stipulation that the award of the distributorship to Glory Jeeva Rita will be subject to the result of the writ petition. 6. Eventually, by an order dated 01.12.2006, the writ petition in W.P(MD)No.6347 of 2004, was disposed of directing the respondents to hold an enquiry on the complaint made by the appellant on 03.10.2006 to the effect that the selected candidates had committed fraud. In pursuance of the said order, an enquiry was conducted, at the end of which, the distributorship granted to Glory Jeeva Rita was terminated by an order dated 18.01.2008. 7. After the termination of the distributorship to Glory Jeeva Rita, the appellant filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.4746 of 2008, seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondents to grant the distributorship to him on the basis of his representation dated 21.01.2008 and as per the merit list prepared on 07.02.2004. This writ petition was admitted in February 2008 and an interim order to maintain status quo was granted. 8. In the year 2010, a fresh newspaper advertisement was issued on 15.06.2010. This writ petition was admitted in February 2008 and an interim order to maintain status quo was granted. 8. In the year 2010, a fresh newspaper advertisement was issued on 15.06.2010. Immediately the appellant filed a Miscellaneous Petition seeking to restrain the respondents from conducting a fresh selection. However, this Court disposed of the main writ petition in W.P(MD)No.4746 of 2008 by an order dated 29.11.2010 directing the respondents to consider the representation of the appellant dated 21.01.2008 and to pass orders as per the guidelines. 9. In pursuance of the said order, the respondents considered the matter and issued an order dated 20.09.2011, rejecting the request of the appellant to grant the distributorship, on the ground that the merit panel dated 07.02.2004 had lapsed. Aggrieved by this order of rejection dated 20.09.2011, the appellant filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.11236 of 2011. 10. This writ petition was admitted and an interim injunction was granted on 28.09.2011 holding up the entire selection process. However, by a final order dated 28.03.2012, the writ petition was dismissed. It is against the said order dismissing his writ petition, the appellant has come up with the above appeal. 11. The main contention of the appellant is that the person who was assigned rank No.1, namely, Glory Jeeva Rita was found to have perpetrated a fraud upon the respondent Corporation and that therefore, only at the instance of the appellant and only after a great deal of efforts taken by the appellant, the distributorship granted to the said Glory Jeeva Rita, came to be terminated. Therefore, the contention of the appellant is that the respondents are obliged to treat all acts that flowed out of such a fraud as a nonest in the eye of law and treat the appellant who was ranked No.2, as automatically eligible for the award of distributorship. 12. But the stand taken by the respondents is that as per the guidelines in force, the validity of a panel ceases to, once, the concerned dealership/distributorship, is commissioned. This is as per the M.O.P. Letter No.P.19011/10/82-IOC, dated 07.11.1985, according to which, a panel is valid only up to the point commissioning of dealership or distributorship. Since the dealership was awarded to Glory Jeeva Rita on 05.08.2004 and it came to be terminated only on 18.01.2008, the panel in which the appellant's name was placed had automatically lapsed. This is as per the M.O.P. Letter No.P.19011/10/82-IOC, dated 07.11.1985, according to which, a panel is valid only up to the point commissioning of dealership or distributorship. Since the dealership was awarded to Glory Jeeva Rita on 05.08.2004 and it came to be terminated only on 18.01.2008, the panel in which the appellant's name was placed had automatically lapsed. Therefore, the respondents claim that it is not possible to award the dealership to the appellant. 13. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. 14. It is true that the person ranked first, namely Glory Jeeva Rita was found to have submitted false documents and fake bank balance statements and secured the dealership. It is also true that the fraud committed by the first rank holder came to light only at the instance of the appellant herein. It is further true that while vacating the interim order granted in W.P(MD)No.6347 of 2004, this Court made the grant in favour of the Glory Jeeva Rita subject to the outcome of the writ petition. 15. But all the above would not in our considered opinion confer any right upon the appellant to automatically get the dealership. It is for the reason that the manual for selection of dealers and distributors contains certain prescriptions in Clause 16, with regard to the field verification. Clause 17, contains the prescription with regard to the validity of the merit panel. Both these Clauses may be usefully extracted as follows:- “16. Field Verification 16.1. The field verification will be conducted for 1st candidate in the merit panel. If found eligible and no complaint is pending or no stay is granted by any court, then Letter of Intent (LOI) will be issued. 16.2. If the no.1 candidate is not found suitable/fails to fulfil the terms and conditions of the award of distributorship or the award is to be cancelled for any reason whatsoever, the distributorship will be offered to the 2nd candidate in the merit panel after necessary field verification. 16.3. If the 2nd candidate also fails to fulfil the terms and conditions of offer or found unsuitable for any reason whatsoever, then the distributorship will be offered to the 3rd candidate in the merit list. 16.4. 16.3. If the 2nd candidate also fails to fulfil the terms and conditions of offer or found unsuitable for any reason whatsoever, then the distributorship will be offered to the 3rd candidate in the merit list. 16.4. If the 3rd candidate also fails to fulfil the terms and conditions of offer or found unsuitable for any reason whatsoever, or in case where no 2nd or 3rd candidates are available in the “merit panel” as explained above, the location may be re-advertised at the discretion of the oil company. 17. Validity of Merit Panel:- The merit panel will be valid for a period of one year from the date of commissioning of the distributorship. If within this period, the distributorship is withdrawn for any reason whatsoever or the distributorship is terminated on account of is incorrect/false/misrepresented statement made in the application or any other reason like proven ineligibility of the distributor or proven malpractice. Oil Company shall have the option of awarding distributorship to the next candidate in the merit panel after necessary Field verification.” 16. A careful look at the above Clauses would show that Clause 16 would not operate in the instant case. Insofar as Clause 17 is concerned, the same covers exactly the situation of the kind that we have on hand. According to Clause 17, if the distributorship is terminated on account of any false statement, the Oil Company will have an option of awarding distributorship to the next candidate in the merit panel. The expression “option” is of significance. If the Oil Company chooses to exercise the option of not awarding the distributorship to the next candidate, the same cannot be questioned. Moreover, the question of the Oil Company exercising an option would arise under Clause 17, only if the distributorship is withdrawn within a period of one year from the date of commissioning of distributorship. In this case, the commissioning was in the year 2004 and the termination was in the year 2008. Therefore, the Oil Company cannot even exercise an option in favour of the appellant. In such circumstances, the learned Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition and we find no reason to interfere with the said order. 17. Mr. A.R.L. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant relied upon clause 4.10 (f) of the manual. But the same does not apply to the cases of this nature. In such circumstances, the learned Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition and we find no reason to interfere with the said order. 17. Mr. A.R.L. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant relied upon clause 4.10 (f) of the manual. But the same does not apply to the cases of this nature. It will apply only to the cases where the number one candidate is found ineligible as a result of field investigation report. Assuming that the said clause applies even then, it is left to the discretion of the Chairman as seen from the express stipulations contained in clause 4.10 (f). Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merits. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.