JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. The petitioner has not been found to be eligible for allotment of a LPG Distribution Godown at a rural location under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGVL) Scheme1. 2. The relevant terms and conditions, which are specified in the brochure issued for the selection of LPG distributors, under the Scheme provide as follows: "(a) own a suitable land (plot) of minimum 20 metre X 24 metre in dimension at the advertised RGGLV location for construction of LPG cylinder Storage Godown. 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. Land for construction of Godown will be considered suitable, if it is freely accessible through all weather motorable approach road (public road or private road of the applicant connecting to the public road) and should be plain, in one contiguous plot, free from live overhead power transmission or telephone lines. Pipelines/Canals/Drainage/Nallahs should not be passing through the plot." 3. The expression 'family unit' has been defined under Clause-4, as follows: "'Family Unit' in case of married person/applicant, shall consist of individual concerned, his/her Spouse and their unmarried son(s)/daughter(s). In case of unmarried person/applicant, 'Family Unit' shall consist of individual concerned, his/her parents and his/her unmarried brother(s) and unmarried sister(s)." 4. In the present case, the petitioner's candidature has been rejected on two counts. Firstly, it has been found that the godown of the petitioner, which was proposed, does not have access through a motorable road. Secondly, it was found that the land, which was proposed, stands in the joint names of the petitioner and his brother and since the petitioner is married, his brother does not fall within the definition of the expression 'family unit'. 5. The expression 'family unit' has been specified in Clause-4 of brochure of the Scheme to consist of a spouse and unmarried son or daughter, where an applicant is married. 6. Having regard to this definition, the petitioner could not have relied upon the land, which is in co-ownership of his brother, even assuming that his brother is ready and willing to furnish his consent. The conditions for eligibility are specified in the brochure and those conditions are not under challenge. 6. Having regard to this definition, the petitioner could not have relied upon the land, which is in co-ownership of his brother, even assuming that his brother is ready and willing to furnish his consent. The conditions for eligibility are specified in the brochure and those conditions are not under challenge. Moreover, in the advertisement, which was published by the Corporation, similar conditions were duly notified. The petitioner has failed to meet the required conditions. Moreover, existence of a motorable approach road is also one of the requirements of Clause-4, which, as a matter of fact, the petitioner has been found, upon physical verification, not to fulfill. Hence, we see no reason to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.