JUDGMENT : Hasnain Massodi, J. 1. Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bari-Brahmana, Jammu-respondent No. 2 herein on 12th April 2007, issued a notice for appointment of Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) Distributors for different locations including Pattan, District Baramulla. Appellant responded to the notice under Physically Handicapped Category and so did respondent No. 8. Appellant's case for allotment of Distributorship in question was considered by the respondents. She in all secured 92 marks and therefore had a clear chance to get the Distributorship allotted in her favour. Respondent No. 4 vide letter No. JLRO/MKTG-17 dated 16th October 2009, issued Letter of Intent (Provisional) for LPG Distributorship at Pattan, District Baramulla, J & K, Category "PH" (W) Marketing Plan 2004-05 in favour of the appellant. Respondent No. 4 through medium of aforementioned letter offered LPG Distributorship at Pattan to the appellant on the terms and conditions laid down therein. Sales Officer of the respondent Corporation vide Letter No. HHK/Exp/Pat Dated 28th October 2009, asked the Appellant to construct LPG Godown, to store 12000 KG LPG as per the specification of CCOE. 2. Notwithstanding the Letter of Intent and subsequent developments, Appellant could not establish the Distributorship as respondent No. 8 through medium of civil suit questioned her very eligibility for Distributorship in question. Though the ad-interim injunction granted was vacated and temporary application dismissed by trial court and thereafter the order of the trial court dated 19th November 2008, war upheld by the First Appellate Court, yet the development did not make any difference for the Appellant. The Appellate Court while dismissing Civil First Miscellaneous Appeal against the trial court order dated 19th November 2008, in effect, left room for the inquiry into the complaint filed by respondent No. 8. 3. Appellant immediately after Letter of Intent was received approached the Chairman, Municipal Committee, Pattan vide Communication dated 19th October 2009, for grant of permission to carry out renovation of the existing shops as per the specification laid down by the respondent Corporation. A request was also made to Chief Engineer, BEACON on 28th October 2009, for grant of NOC for renovation of the shops proposed to be used by the Appellant as "Showroom" for setting up LPG Distributorship. Colonel (Works), BEACON vide communication dated 28th October 2009, informed Senior Regional Manager (respondent No. 2) that the BEACON was not in a position to provide NOC to the Appellant. Colonel (Works), BEACON vide communication dated 28th October 2009, informed Senior Regional Manager (respondent No. 2) that the BEACON was not in a position to provide NOC to the Appellant. Chairman, Municipal Committee, Pattan also expressed his inability to grant permission to renovate the existing shops in absence of NOC from Chief Engineer, BEACON to the proposed renovation. 4. Resultantly, the Appellant was not in a position to set up Distributorship at the site indicated in her application. To obviate the difficulty, appellant purchased four shops with land underneath and appurtenant thereto measuring one kanal and two marlas under an Agreement to Sell dated 3rd December 2009, registered on 10th December 2009 and informed the respondent Corporation about the shops and land so acquired. The Appellant's attempted to create an impression that the site indicated in the application was to be acquired in connection with four laning of Srinagar Baramulla National Highway and that the Appellant was therefore constrained to shift the site. 5. Respondent No. 2 in the meantime, vide his communication dated 24th February 2010, informed the appellant that a complaint stands lodged as regards the procedure followed for allotment of LPG Distributorship at Pattan and a case RC. 13(A)/2008-CBI JMU was registered with CBI Jammu. The Appellant was asked not to proceed further in the matter. This was followed by communication dated 28th April 2010, addressed by respondent No. 2 to the appellant informing her that the investigation in case registered with CBI Jammu was in progress and furthermore as per the communication received from Chief Engineer, BEACON, there was no proposal to acquire the site indicated in the application in connection with the four laning of Srinagar Baramulla National Highway. The Appellant was informed that, in said background, there was no question of approving alternate site proposed by the Appellant. 6. It was also conveyed to the Appellant that Mst. Shamshada Begum (owner) W/o. Shri Mohammad Maqbool Wani, who according to Appellant had transferred the site indicated in the application to the Appellant, had approached the respondent Corporation with the representation that she had not entered into any kind of transaction/agreement with her (Appellant) in connection with the site indicated in the application and that the complaint was pending before the respondents. The Appellant was informed that the respondent Corporation in the said background was not in a position to permit the appellant to substitute/alternate site of showroom. The above communication was followed by letter dated 8th February 2011. The Appellant was again informed that Mst. Shamshaeda Begum W/o. Mohammad Maqbool Wani R/o Pattan who according to the appellant had agreed to sell the site for proposed Distributorship to the Appellant, had denied to have entered into an agreement with the Appellant. Appellant's attention was invited to para 13 of the Notice inviting offers titled "Construction of Godown/Showroom on the site as mentioned in the application form" wherein it was categorically provided that in no circumstances would an aspirant for Distributorship be given an opportunity to offer a site other than one shown in the application. In case of any variance, the allotment of Distributorship has to stand automatically cancelled. The Appellant was also reminded of para 11 of the Notice titled "Selection process and Evaluation criteria" providing that if on verification it was found that information given in an application was incorrect, false or misrepresented, the Appellant's candidature would automatically stand cancelled and therefore not eligible for Distributorship. 7. Appellant aggrieved with Communication dated 28th April 2010 and 8th February 2011, filed writ petition being OWP No. 723/2011, she on the strength of averments made in the petition sought following relief: i. A writ of certiorari quashing communications dated 28th April 2010 and 8th February 2011 addressed by respondent No. 2 to the appellant. ii. A writ of mandamus commanding respondents to appoint appellant and distribute in terms of letter of Intent bearing No. JLRO/MKTG-17 dated 16-10-2009 and make it functional. 8. The Appellant maintained that she was constrained to shift the site due to four laning of Srinagar Baramulla National Highway (NH-1A) and therefore was not to be deprived of LPG Distributorship for said reason. It was pleaded that the Appellant had already arranged an alternate showroom much before she was informed by the respondent No. 2 not to proceed in the matter. Appellant insisted that as case registered with Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Jammu was closed as not proved and the result of the investigation approved by Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu vide his order dated 16th September 2010, the respondents were not left with any reason to deny Distributorship to her. 9. Appellant insisted that as case registered with Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Jammu was closed as not proved and the result of the investigation approved by Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu vide his order dated 16th September 2010, the respondents were not left with any reason to deny Distributorship to her. 9. The writ petition was opposed by the respondents 2 to 7 on the ground that the Appellant in her application falsely claimed to be owner in possession of landed property measuring 25 marlas comprising Khasra No. 5115/5117 situated at National Highway Main Market, Pattan where she proposed to set up Distributorship; that on first verification, the Appellant managed to get a lady wearing burqa who admitted to have executed an agreement to sell in favour of the Appellant; that the appellant was accordingly asked to get showroom for proposed Distributorship ready within a period of six months; that in the meantime, the owner of landed property in question namely Shamshada Begum lodged a complaint alleging that the Agreement to Sell was, a piece of forgery and fraudulently attributed to her. It is pleaded that the complaint received from Shamshada Begum prompted respondents to direct second verification and on such verification, the claim made by the Appellant that she was owner in possession of the proposed site was found false and without substance. It is denied that the complaint by Shamshada Begum was subject matter of CBI investigation in case R.C. 13(A)/2008-CBI JMU registered with CBI Jammu and that the Final Report should be taken to have closed the matter. Respondents explained that the CBI case was registered at the instance of respondent No. 8-empanelled candidate at Serial No. 2 and closure report as also order of learned Special Judge Anti Corruption, Jammu related to said complaint. 10. Respondent No. 8 in her reply took the stand similar to one taken by the respondents 2 to 7. It was insisted that the Appellant attempted to get Distributorship on false and fabricated documents; that the Appellant did not only claim to be the owner of the proposed site indicated in the application, but also forged her Date of Birth and Physically Handicapped Certificates. 11. It was insisted that the Appellant attempted to get Distributorship on false and fabricated documents; that the Appellant did not only claim to be the owner of the proposed site indicated in the application, but also forged her Date of Birth and Physically Handicapped Certificates. 11. The writ court dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage on the ground that the Appellant did not own the proposed site of the Distributorship, made a false statement in this regard in her application and therefore in view of terms and conditions of Notice was disentitled from Distributorship in question. The very fact that the Appellant sought change in the site of the proposed Distributorship, according to the writ court was sufficient to reject her application. Reference in this regard was made to Clause 11 and 13 of the Notice. The Appellant was held to have approached the court with unclean hands and therefore disentitled herself from the relief sought in the writ petition. 12. The writ court Judgment is questioned in the Letters Patent Appeal on hand on the grounds that the learned Single Judge while rendering the Judgment did not consider all the grounds set out in the writ petition. The writ court is said to have failed to appreciate that after the Chief Engineer, BEACON declined to grant NOC to renovation of the Showroom at the site indicated in her application, the complaint filed by the Mst. Shamshada Begum lost its significance. Result of CBI Investigation in case R.C. 13(A)/2008-CBI JMU and agreement recorded by Special Judge Anti Corruption, Jammu with the conclusion by the Investigating Authority according to the Appellant, belied the respondents' stand. The writ court is said to have not noticed this aspect of the matter and also not to have considered the trial court and appellate court judgment. Appellant insists that her attempted exclusion from the race for allotment of Distributorship, was part of well thought conspiracy to perpetuate monopoly in LPG Distributorship. 13. We have gone through memo of appeal, the writ court Judgment as also writ record. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 14. The Appellant responded to the Notice for appointment of LPG Distributors Published in a local daily on 12th April 2007, well aware of the terms and conditions and therefore agreed to the terms and conditions laid down in the Notice. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 14. The Appellant responded to the Notice for appointment of LPG Distributors Published in a local daily on 12th April 2007, well aware of the terms and conditions and therefore agreed to the terms and conditions laid down in the Notice. Conditions 11 and 13 are relevant to the present controversy and are rightly noticed by the writ court. The conditions reads as under; "11. Selection Process and Evaluation criteria: The evaluation on the parameters (a) to (f) above document based and all be done on the basis of information given in the application. The evaluation on the parameter (g & h) will be based on the interview. On verification, if it is found that the information given in application is incorrect/false/misrepresented then the applicants candidature will stand cancelled and will not be eligible for distributorship" 13. Construction of Godown/Showroom on the site as mentioned in application form: The applicant who readily have suitable godown/land for construction of godown for storage of filled LPG cylinders and shop/land for construction of shop for showroom for setting up of LPG distributorship or have a firm commitment from the land owner for purchase/lease or can arrange it are awarded marks. The details given in the application alone will be considered for this purpose and the applicant will not be given any opportunity to offer any other land subsequently. (Even at the time of interview). For this purpose, the land owned by the family members are defined in eligibility criteria would also be considered as belonging to the applicant. However after selection of the applicant, physical verification of the godown land/godown as well as the showroom will be undertaken. In the event, it is found that there is variance in the details submitted with the application form and or the plot is not found suitable for construction of godown or the godown is not approved by Chief Controller of Explosives the allotment of the distributorship will stand automatically cancelled." 15. A closer look at the above reproduced conditions makes it clear that incorrect or false information or information based on misrepresentation would result in cancellation of applicant's candidature. Having regard to the terms and conditions in question, an aspirant for LPG Distributorship was to be careful while submitting the application and identifying the site at which LPG Distributorship was proposed to be established. Having regard to the terms and conditions in question, an aspirant for LPG Distributorship was to be careful while submitting the application and identifying the site at which LPG Distributorship was proposed to be established. Once a site was identified, no alteration was permissible. The reason for such a provision is not difficult to figure out. An aspirant for the Distributorship is awarded marks amongst other factors on the basis of the site offered. Selection is made having regard to the total marks secured. It is therefore necessary that, site once indicated is not altered or changed, after merit is assessed and Provisional Letter of Intent issued. 16. Having said so, let us find out as to whether the Appellant as held by the learned Single Judge was out of competition as she gave incorrect information in her application as regards proposed site of LPG Showroom and thereafter made an attempt to get the site shifted to another place on a false pretext. The Appellant in her application claimed to be owner in possession of landed property measuring 25 marlas with two shops standing thereon situated at Main Bazar Pattan, District Baramulla transferred to her by its owner Shamshada Begum vide Agreement to sell dated 4th May 2007. The Agreement to Sell was notarized and original owner namely Shamshada Begum shown to have affixed her signature on the document. Mst. Shamshada Begum appeared in the Office of the respondent Corporation insisting that the Agreement to Sell dated 4th May 2007, was a piece of forgery and that she had never signed the agreement or agreed to transfer subject matter of the agreement to the Appellant. The Appellant filed a civil suit in the court of Sub Judge, Pattan against Mst. Shamshada Begum for grant of permanent injunction decree restraining defendant (Mst. Shamshada Begum) from interfering with the possession of the suit property. She allowed the suit to be dismissed for want of prosecution and did not take steps to serve the defendant. Appellant therefore falsely claimed in her application to be the owner in possession of the proposed site shown in her application. She accordingly made herself disentitled from allotment of LPG Distributorship and made her candidature liable to be cancelled. She allowed the suit to be dismissed for want of prosecution and did not take steps to serve the defendant. Appellant therefore falsely claimed in her application to be the owner in possession of the proposed site shown in her application. She accordingly made herself disentitled from allotment of LPG Distributorship and made her candidature liable to be cancelled. The Appellant after Shamshada Begum came forward with her complaint attempted in vain to neutralize the effect of the complaint" by once again fabricating a cancellation deed whereby the Agreement to Sell dated 4th May 2007, was cancelled and parties freed from obligation under agreement. She now entered into an Agreement to Sell with one Mst. Hafiza W/o. Manzoor Ahmad Bhat R/o Pattan whereby Mst. Hafiza agreed to sell plot of land measuring one kanal and two marlas with four shops constructed thereon to the Appellant. She wanted respondent Corporation to shift the site of LPG Distributorship to the landed property agreed to sold to her by Mst. Hafiza. 17. The Appellant justified shift on the ground that the earlier site i.e. one at Main Bazar Pattan was to be acquired in connection with four laning of Srinagar Baramulla National Highway (NH-1A). The stand taken was contradicted by Chief Engineer, BEACON by informing respondent No. 2 that there was no such proposal under consideration. Appellant by insisting on alteration in site again made her candidature liable to be cancelled. 18. Appellant's contention that as investigation in case R.C. 13(A)/2008-CBIJMU registered with CBI Jammu was closed as not proved and accepted by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu, complaint filed by Shamshada Begum was to be treated as groundless and without any merit. It is pertinent to point out that complaint filed by Shamshada Begum disowning the Agreement to Sell dated 4th May 2007, attributed to her, was found correct on second verification ordered by the respondents. This apart the complaint filed by Shamshada Begum was not under investigation in aforementioned case. The case R.C. 13(A)/2008-CBI JMU registered with CBI Jammu related to incorrect Date of Birth recorded by the Appellant in her application and the Physically Handicapped Certificate (PHC) produced by the Appellant. The outcome of CBI investigation therefore was not to impact the complaint filed by Mst. Shamshada Begum. 19. The case R.C. 13(A)/2008-CBI JMU registered with CBI Jammu related to incorrect Date of Birth recorded by the Appellant in her application and the Physically Handicapped Certificate (PHC) produced by the Appellant. The outcome of CBI investigation therefore was not to impact the complaint filed by Mst. Shamshada Begum. 19. The Appellant after the Letter of Intent (Provisional) was issued to her, proposed to shift the location of the Showroom on the pretext that earlier showroom was being acquired in connection with four laning of Srinagar Baramulla Highway. In terms of Condition No. 13 of the Advertisement Notice, noticed above such a course was not available to the Appellant. The Appellant once she identified the site wherefrom she proposed to operate the LPG Distributorship, was not free to shift the location or ask the respondent No. 3 to accord such permission. The Letter of Intent (Provisional) related to location shown by the Appellant in her application and on the basis of Letter of Intent so issued, the Appellant could not establish the showroom and godown at a place different from one recorded in her application and the Letter of Intent. 20. For the reasons discussed, learned writ court was right in concluding that the Appellant's case attracted Conditions 11 and 13 laid down in the Advertisement Notice and her candidature for LPG Distributorship at Pattan Baramulla was liable to be cancelled. The Appellant therefore was not able to make out a case for admission of the writ petition. 21. We, against the above backdrop, do not find a reason to take a view different from one taken by the learned Single Judge. The Letters Patent Appeal is without any merit and accordingly dismissed. Interim direction, if any is vacated.