Judgment : 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent herein to consider the objection-cum-representation dated 24.9.2012 of the petitioner herein in accordance with the terms and conditions of Selection issued in the “Brochure on Selection of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak” (RGGLV), as far as Kovilur Village (Sl.No.137) in the Notification dated 28.12.2011 in Polur Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District is concerned. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the Indian Oil Corporation, who is the first respondent herein, advertised to select suitable candidates for appointment as LPG (Indane) Agent in various places, more particularly in Thiruvannamalai District, from out of the Scheduled Tribes under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) Scheme. The petitioner belonged to Tribal Community, she applied for Kovilur village LPG Distribution point as she has fulfilled all the terms and conditions of eligibility criteria under the Notification issued for the said purpose. 3. The first respondent by a letter dated 17.8.2012 intimated the selection of candidates by Draw at the District Collectorate, Thiruvannamalai to be held on 29.8.2012 at 5.00 P.M. In the said Draw, the Indian Oil Corporation Officials and the applicants were present and that the Draw was held in the presence of the District Collector, Thiruvannamalai as the Chief Guest for the event. The petitioner also stated that the entire proceedings were video graphed and as many as 8 candidates were listed as eligible contestants. The case of the petitioner is that she is residing in a place which is very near to Kovilur village and other candidates are living at a distance of about 8 to 10 kms., away from the Kovilur village. 4. The petitioner further stated that the second respondent, more particularly, was hurriedly declared and selected by the first respondent. The petitioner has made a representation, pointing out the foul play and that the second respondent has deliberately deprived the petitioner's opportunity of being selected in a fair manner as LPG Agent for Kovilur. 4. The petitioner further stated that the second respondent, more particularly, was hurriedly declared and selected by the first respondent. The petitioner has made a representation, pointing out the foul play and that the second respondent has deliberately deprived the petitioner's opportunity of being selected in a fair manner as LPG Agent for Kovilur. The petitioner has stated that she has made representation on 24.9.2012 to consider her representation dated 28.12.2011 and the same may be considered on merits and orders passed in accordance with the terms and conditions of selection issued in the brochure of selection of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) Scheme, in so far as the Kovilur village in the notification dated 28.12.2011 Thiruvannamalai is concerned, within the time frame. 5. The first respondent has filed a counter that after proper advertisement in the Daily Thanthi dated 28.12.2011 for appointment of LPG (Indane) Agents in various places in Thiruvannamalai District, including for the location Kovilur, under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak Scheme under ST Category, a draw was conducted as scheduled on 29.8.2012 at 5.00 P.M., at the Office of the Thiruvannamalai Collectorate, in which the Collector was invited as the Chief Guest. There were 8 eligible applicants for the appointment of the Agent, including the petitioner herein and draw was conducted and the District Collector was requested to draw one token. The token picked by the District Collector at that draw conducted in the name of the second respondent and the second respondent was declared as a successful agent. The entire proceedings of the draw was videographed to maintain transparency. 6. After considering the objections of the persons, allotment was ordered to the second respondent by proceedings dated 9.1.2013. Earlier on 31.12.2012, Baggiyaraj was informed about offering LPG at Kovilur on certain points wherein he has informed that the conditions stipulated in the communication dated 31.12.2012 is subject to the result of this writ petition and any other case filed in any of the Courts in Tamil Nadu or appeal therefrom, if any, challenging the award of this Distributorship. 7. The second respondent filed a counter stating that there was a transparency in the selection of the Distributorship Agent and the petitioner was present at the time of draw and she has also admitted that she was present at the time of selection of Distributorship. 8. 7. The second respondent filed a counter stating that there was a transparency in the selection of the Distributorship Agent and the petitioner was present at the time of draw and she has also admitted that she was present at the time of selection of Distributorship. 8. Heard Mr.M.Elumalai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.K.C.Ramamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr.P.Satheesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 9. From the pleadings of the petitioner, it is clear that the second respondent was given distributorship after following the due process conducting draw and videographing the entire proceedings. The petitioner has given objections and all the objections have been considered and allotment was given to the second respondent by the third respondent. The petitioner has not chosen to question the said allotment by filing a separate writ petition or by amending the present writ petition prayer. But this writ petition is only to consider her objections with regard to the allotment of agency to the second respondent. The case of the first respondent is that the representation of the petitioner has been duly considered and rejected and that that order has not been questioned by the petitioner. I find no merits in the writ petition and the writ petition is devoid of merits. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. However, the first respondent is directed to furnish a copy of the rejection order to the petitioner, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The first respondent is also directed to furnish the proceedings of videography to the petitioner by means of non-rewritable CD to enable him to workout his remedy, if he is so aggrieved by the order of allotment given to the contesting respondent.