Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Archana Singh for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2-Indian Oil Corporation. 2. The petitioner’s application for award of a fuel pump dealership was rejected vide communication dated 1.7.2013. Aggrieved the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 43984 of 2013 that was disposed off on 16.12.2013 with a direction to the respondent No. 2 to decide the grievance raised by the petitioner. The same has been rejected by the impugned order dated 15.1.2014. 3. The petitioner’s grievance is that her application has now been rejected on a totally erroneous consideration of being de­layed, and the representation having been filed beyond the time as given by the High Court. 4. Sri Manish Dev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the delay was not on the part of the petitioner but on ac­count of certain unavoidable circumstances as explained and even otherwise the delay was not such that it could not have been con­doned. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the learned single Judge in the case of Natha Ram Pathak v. Director, Prashikhan Evam Sevayojan, U.P. Lucknow & others, 2005 ( 2) AWC 1900 . 5. Smt. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, contends that even though the reasons for rejection of the application on merits has not been indi­cated in the impugned order, but the fact of the matter is that the petitioner had not ten­dered the bank draft as prescribed under Clause 15 of the brochure. She submits that the bank draft was to be payable in the same city where the divisional office is situate, namely, at Varanasi, whereas the petitioner had tendered a bank draft payable in a dif­ferent city. 6. Sri Manish Dev Singh contends that such clauses are not mandatory and only directory. 7. Even assuming for the sake of argu­ments that the clause is directory it is not meant to be disobeyed by the petitioner or else it will bring about a situation of viola­tion of Article 14 of the Constitution of In­dia as, there may be a large number of aspir­ants who might have committed the same mistake, and their applications may have been rejected. 8. The insistence, therefore, of the respon­dent-Corporation of a bank draft to be in the same pro forma as required under Clause 15 of the brochure cannot be overlooked. 8. The insistence, therefore, of the respon­dent-Corporation of a bank draft to be in the same pro forma as required under Clause 15 of the brochure cannot be overlooked. It is an essential requirement and not a mere for­mality. The applicant should have cautiously and carefully perused the clear instructions before filling up of the application form. The tendering of the bank draft drawn on a bank at Lucknow would be clearly against the de­sired drawee bank, which in the present case would be any bank within the city of Varanasi. There may be various reasons to insist upon such a requirement but there is no challenge raised on merits on the afore­said categorical requirement under the bro­chure. 9. Sri Manish Dev Singh has handed over a photostat copy of the bank draft that was tendered by the petitioner. The drawee branch mentioned therein is the service branch at Lucknow. The bank draft was got prepared at Jaunpur payable at Lucknow. 10. We, therefore, find that the bank draft does not conform to the specific requirement as per Clause 15 of the brochure. In the afore­said circumstances, even if the said reason has not been given in the impugned order, we do not find any good reason to interfere at the instance of the petitioner, inasmuch as, it is the admitted position now that the bank draft was not in accordance with Clause 15 of the brochure. It would therefore be a fu­tile exercise to remit the matter again for any such enquiry. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the issue of delay, therefore, cannot bring about a different result. 11. Consequently, there is no merit in the petition. Rejected. Petition dismissed.