JUDGMENT C.V. Bhadang, JJ. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner had applied for a LPG dealership in pursuance of an advertisement dated 29th October, 2012 issued by the first respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. That application was for the LPG distributorship at village Dabhadi (Malegaon), District Nashik under open (CC) Category. The petitioner had obtained a land for showroom on lease from one Mr. Sudhakar Baburao Nikam for a period of 15 years under, registered lease deed for the period from 1st October, 2013 to 1st September, 2028. However, by communication dated 12th July, 2014 the first respondent intimated the petitioner that he is not eligible for the LPG distributorship on the ground that the period of lease agreement was required to be for a period of 15 years from the last date of submission of the application i.e. 29th October, 2013. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the first respondent has refused to consider the application of the petitioner on a hyper technical ground. It is submitted that indeed a registered deed of agreement for the period of 15 years was enclosed along with the application, however, the petitioner was held to be ineligible on the ground that the period of 15 years has to commence from the last date of the submission of the application i.e. 29th October, 2013. It is submitted that the lease agreement contained a recital under which the lease period could be extended by mutual consent of the parties. Thus, the deficiency, if any, in the matter of the shortfall in the lease period could have been cured which was permissible under Clause 8.5 of the Guidelines for Selection of Regular LPG Distributors (hereinafter referred to as "the Guidelines of 2013", for short). Clause 8.5 of the said Guidelines of 2013 reads thus: "8.5. Procedure For Receipt of Application Application would be received in sealed envelope only. After application is received, serial number would be put on the envelope and also recorded in a 'Register'. Acknowledgement for applications received will be sent to the applicants. Clause 8.5 of the said Guidelines of 2013 reads thus: "8.5. Procedure For Receipt of Application Application would be received in sealed envelope only. After application is received, serial number would be put on the envelope and also recorded in a 'Register'. Acknowledgement for applications received will be sent to the applicants. In case deficiencies are found in the application, a letter would be sent to the applicant to rectify the deficiencies within a specified period of time." The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Agrawal Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors. 2003(1) Bom. C.R.495 in order to submit that technical irregularities which do not violate the essential conditions of the public notice, cannot come in the way of the consideration of the application. It is submitted that administrative decision based on hyper technical approach treating a non-essential condition as essential condition is liable to be interfered with. 4. On the contrary, it is submitted on behalf of the first respondent that the condition having the lease period of 15 years from 29th October, 2013 was an essential condition and would not be covered under the Clause permitting correction of deficiencies. It is submitted that being a material condition, it ought to have been scrupulously complied with and the first respondent was justified in treating the petitioner as ineligible on account of breach of the said essential condition. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Ganesh Dyneshwar Kamble Vs. HPCL, Writ Petition No. 5020 of 2014, decided on 10th June, 2014., Ruturaj Laxman Chalak Vs. Union of India & Anr., Writ Petition No. 5888 of 2014, decided on 27th June, 2014., Vilas s/o. Rambhau Chaudhar Vs. HPCL, Writ Petition No. 9467 of 2014, decided on 11th December, 2014. 5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on considering the rival submissions, we find that the petition is liable to be dismissed. The issue raised is no longer res-intergra. The dispute as to the requirement of having a 15 years lease period in the context of Clause 8.5 of the Guidelines of 2013, has been considered by this Court in several petitions. The issue raised is no longer res-intergra. The dispute as to the requirement of having a 15 years lease period in the context of Clause 8.5 of the Guidelines of 2013, has been considered by this Court in several petitions. The decision in the case of Ganesh Kamble (Supra) as also in the case of Ruturaj Chalak (Supra) to which one of us (A.S. Oka, J.) was a party, involved a similar issue. It has been held that only because the lease period could be extended by consent of the parties, would not come to the aid of the petitioner, in over coming the shortfall in the period of lease. 6. In a more recent decision in a case of Vilas Choudhari (Supra), a Division Bench of this Court, after taking a survey of all the earlier decisions of this Court, has held that the eligibility norm of having a registered lease deed for a minimum 15 years "as on the last date for submission of the application", cannot be construed as a 'deficiency' and being an essential term, an opportunity in terms of Clause 8.5 of the Guidelines of 2013 (that is for curing of the deficiency), cannot be given. 7. The case of the Agrawal Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) cannot come to the aid of the petitioner as it turned on its own facts. In that case, the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (I.O.C.), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (H.P.C.L.) and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (B.P.C.L.) had invited tenders for Award of separate contracts, regionwise, for transportation of bulk LPG by road. The three petitioners in that case had submitted the tender forms. however, the demand drafts for the requisite amount of Rs. 12,000/-which were annexed with the application were inadvertently drawn in favour of a company other than the company to which the tender form was submitted. In that view of the matter, the petitioners' credential bids were rejected which was the subject matter of challenge before this Court. It was held that the mistake was a technical irregularity and did not violate essential condition of the tender notice. We find that the facts in the present case are clearly distinguishable. 8. In the result, there is no merit in the petition. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. 9. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.