ORDER : Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order of rejection dtd.26.03.2013 available at Annexure-6 to this writ petition. The short recital involved in this case is that the petitioner was an applicant for retail out-let in respect of a spot within 3KM. from Turekela in the district of Bolangir pursuant to an advertisement published on 14.09.2011. Pursuant to such advertisement the petitioner submitted an application along with all required documents as per the prescribed conditions. Consequent upon verification of the papers submitted by the petitioner finally on 17.05.2012 the land of the petitioner had been verified by the land verification committee. Subsequently on 14.08.2012 the petitioner was also asked to attend an interview on 7.09.2012 in the said interview the petitioner had been awarded 73.59% marks and was also selected for the particular Retail Out-let Dealership by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited in short hereinafter referred to as ‘HPCL’. Petitioner alleged that while the matter stood thus he was surprised to receive a communication dtd.06.03.2013 indicating therein that he has been found ineligible for the reason of defects in the residential certificate furnished by him particularly alleging that the residential certificate bears the name of the applicant as “AHEMADULLA KHAN” instead of “AHMEDULLA KHAN”. By issuing such letter the petitioner was also asked to explain the position to the authority within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter. Pursuant to which the petitioner filed his explanation before the HPCL on 15.03.2013 indicating therein that “AHMEDULLA KHAN” and “AHEMADULLA KHAN” is one and same person. Petitioner s explanation also accompanies the corrected Residential Certificate as well as affidavit substantiating his claim. Petitioner alleges that in spite of his explanation in the above matter he was communicated with the impugned order dtd.26.03.2013 intimating him therein the rejection of his case on account of discrepancy in the ‘name’. It is submitted by the petitioner that in the meanwhile the petitioner filed review before the Tahasildar Kantabanji for correction of the typographical error and the Tahasildar Kantabanji by an order under Annexure-7 while allowing the review at the instance of the petitioner also made necessary corrections in the residential certificate. It is submitted by the petitioner that in the meanwhile the petitioner filed review before the Tahasildar Kantabanji for correction of the typographical error and the Tahasildar Kantabanji by an order under Annexure-7 while allowing the review at the instance of the petitioner also made necessary corrections in the residential certificate. In the meanwhile the petitioner also filed an appeal before the opposite parties accompanying the corrected residential certificate and the same has no response as on filing of the writ petition. Petitioner alleges that on one hand the opposite parties are sitting over the appeal and at the same time proceeding to revisit for Dealership issue by initiating a fresh process. It is in these premises the petitioner claims that the mistake appeared in the residential certificate was a typographical mistake as admitted by the public authorities and he was not at fault in preparation of the said documents. Further since the corrected residential certificate was already submitted before the authorities in furtherance of his submission of a clarification alongwith an affidavit authority ought to have rolled back from their rejection order vide Annexure-6 and the petitioner should have been awarded with the dealership. Per contra the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 on their appearance filed a counter affidavit and taking support of their counter submitted that the mistake in the name of the person mentioned in the residence certificate was found by the Senior Officer of the Corporation during scrutiny of the documents. The petitioner was asked to explain the matter following the principle of natural justice the authority was not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Subsequently in exercise of their power under clause 9 (g) & (h) of the Dealership selection guidelines and also clause (d) & (e) of the advertisement the opposite parties are justified in their impugned action taking shelter a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case in between Harpal Singh Chauhan Vs. State of U.P reported in 1993 (3) SCC 552 . It is on these premises the opposite parties justified their action in rejecting the case of the petitioner and thus prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard learned counsels for the parties. There is no dispute that the petitioner has applied for the particular Dealership following an advertisement made by the HPCL. It is on these premises the opposite parties justified their action in rejecting the case of the petitioner and thus prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard learned counsels for the parties. There is no dispute that the petitioner has applied for the particular Dealership following an advertisement made by the HPCL. Petitioner has also annexed his application for the particular HPCL Retail out-let as available under Annexure-2 to this writ petition. In the application form the petitioner categorically indicated his name in Block letters as AHMEDULLA KHAN Son of FAIZULLA KHAN. The signature in the application at column-18 under caption undertaking the petitioner not only gave a certificate indicating his name as AHMEDULLA KHAN but also signed the form indicating the column meant for signature his name in capital letter as AHMEDULLA KHAN. It is apt to note here that the petitioner had also filed an affidavit accompanying the application form which also categorically indicated his name as “AHMEDULLA KHAN”. All these information goes consistent. It appears that the documents submitted by the petitioner were also scrutinized by the Scrutiny Committee and petitioner at that point of time was not intimated regarding such discrepancy in his name. However after about six months gap the petitioner was intimated with a letter that he has been found ineligible for the Dealership on account of the mistake in the name. While issuing such intimation the petitioner was also asked to submit his explanation to the authority satisfying his case. The letter clearly indicated that in the event the petitioner fails to give any explanation as stipulated therein it shall be presumed that the petitioner has no explanation to offer as per the Dealership Selection Guidelines. The document appended by the petitioner further reveals that in response to the above the petitioner explained the authority his position with regard to the discrepancy in the name by submitting an explanation which was received in the office of the Senior Regional Manager on 15.03.2013 accompanying therein an affidavit reiterating his submission sworn on 14.03.2013. He had in the meanwhile already applied to the Tahasildar for issuance of a fresh residential certificate indicating his name appropriately and consequent upon which the Tahasildar has also been pleased to issue a fresh residential certificate correctly indicating the name of the petitioner. He had in the meanwhile already applied to the Tahasildar for issuance of a fresh residential certificate indicating his name appropriately and consequent upon which the Tahasildar has also been pleased to issue a fresh residential certificate correctly indicating the name of the petitioner. As appears the petitioner also submitted a copy of the fresh residential certificate as Sl.No.2 in his explanation vide Annexure-5. From the documents filed in the writ petition it clearly reflects that the opposite parties are not also in clear state of mind. As a consequence of which in issuing a correspondence dtd.6.03.2015 the opposite parties while intimating the discrepancy in the documents accompanying the application form have given option to the petitioner to come-up with a clarification in response to which the petitioner not only gave his clarification but also filed a corrected residential certificate as issued by the competent authority in establishing his case. Since the petitioner was given a chance to explain his position and since a corrected Residential certificate was already issued by the competent authority admitting the mistake in the Administrative side this Court finds no reason to ignore such explanation and the public document while considering the case of the petitioner pursuant to explanation called for. This Court further observes that since the mistake in indicating the name of the petitioner in the residential certificate was not at the instance of the petitioner the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. This Court finds there is total non-application of the mind by the opposite parties and at the same time the decision under Annexure-6 is also in non-consideration of the valid document such as the corrected residential certificate already submitted in the meanwhile. The impugned order vide Annexure-6 since is not supported with any valid reason the defect being a minor one this Court while interfering in the matter set-aside the impugned order vide Annexure-6. Since the petitioner has already met the requirement clarification needed by the HPCL Company it appears that the petitioner is already qualified to get the retail out-let having fulfilled all the required criteria hence he be issued with the letter awarding retail out-let dealership at the location within 3KM. from Turekela in the district of Bolangir. The entire exercise be concluded within a period of fifteen days from the date of communication of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of with above direction. from Turekela in the district of Bolangir. The entire exercise be concluded within a period of fifteen days from the date of communication of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of with above direction. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Petition disposed of.