1. Heard Mr. H Sarma, learned counsel representing the petitioner. Also heard Mr. MK Choudhury, learned Senior counsel representing the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) assisted by Mr. TN Srinivasan as well as Mr. G Sarma, learned counsel representing the Respondent No.3. 2. A state-wide selection for appointment of distributors under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) and under respective Oil Corporations i.e. IOCL, BPCL and HPCL was set in motion by newspaper Advertisement dated 31.12.2011. The issue in the present proceedings is with regard to serial No.35 pertaining to RGGLV location at Patacharkuchi under Bajali Block in the district of Barpeta. The selection in the said location was to be made from open category. 3. In terms of the said Advertisement, the last date for submitting application was fixed on 2.2.2012. 4. The controversy in the present proceedings revolves round the Clause under 'Common Eligibility Criteria for all Categories' prescribing that the applicant must be the owner of a suitable plot of land measuring 20m x 24m dimension at the advertised RGGLV location for the purpose of construction of LPG Cylinder Storage Godown. 5. Consequent upon application made by the petitioner, the respondent IOCL informed vide letter dated 16.5.2013 that the petitioner had qualified for draw for selection and was asked to be present at the specified address on 7.6.2013 for participating in the draw for selection. Although the petitioner was selected in the draw held at Guwahati on 7.6.2013, a letter was issued by the respondent IOCL on 31.7.2013 indicating the following information as derived from field verification conducted pursuant to the draw. The same is as follows; “(1) You do not have land belonging to self/family unit at the time of submission of your application. (2) The land documents submitted by you in your husband's name was checked at Bajali Revenue Circle, Patacharkuchi on 04.07.2013 and found registered on 25.06.2013 only and not at the time of submission of application.” In view of the aforesaid findings, the respondent IOCL arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner had misrepresented the facts in his application, as a result of which, her candidature for distributorship stands cancelled. 6. Before proceeding further it would be worthwhile to notice the information provided by the petitioner in respect of the land offered by her. 6. Before proceeding further it would be worthwhile to notice the information provided by the petitioner in respect of the land offered by her. In the said application dated 31.1.2012 the owner of the land was shown to be one Manoranjan Sharma, being the husband of the petitioner and the owner of 2 Kathas of land covered by Patta No.2, Dag No.499/501 which devolved upon him by Deed No.324/2009. 7. In support of the fact that the land is free from any encumbrances, the petitioner relies upon the document at Annexure-5 to the writ petition which is a non-encumbrance certificate indicating that a parcel of land measuring 4 Kathas 15 Lechas under Dag No.633/950 is free from encumbrance. 8. It is also the pleaded case of the petitioner that the office of the Senior Sub-Registrar, Patacharkuchi had issued the Certificate dated 29.3.2013 i.e. the Non-Encumbrance Certificate, certifying that 4 Kathas 15 Lechas of land under Patta No.88 and Dag No.633 belongs to the family unit of the petitioner. Further, the Circle Officer, Bajali Revenue Circle had also issued a Certificate dated 1.7.2013 certifying that the petitioner along with her husband Sri Manoranjan Sharma have been residing in the concerned plot of land. As such, the respondent authorities could not have come to a conclusion contrary to the Certificates issued by the Revenue officials. In sum and substance, the case of the petitioner is that since the family unit of the petitioner is the owner and have been in possession of the plot of land in question since the year 1971, there arose no occasion for the respondent authorities to enquire into the status of the plot of land offered by the petitioner. 9. Referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the IOCL, Senior counsel Mr. Choudhury submits that during field verification of credentials of the petitioner, it was found that the petitioner did not have land of her own and neither the family unit of the petitioner had clear ownership of the land on the date of submission of the application. Mr. Choudhury refers to the definition of “own” as provided in the Notice to say that it means having clear ownership title of the property in the name of the applicant/family member of the family unit of the petitioner. Taking it forward, Mr. Mr. Choudhury refers to the definition of “own” as provided in the Notice to say that it means having clear ownership title of the property in the name of the applicant/family member of the family unit of the petitioner. Taking it forward, Mr. Choudhury also submits that going by the definition of “Family Unit” appearing in the Notice as well as in the Brochure of selection of RGGLV it means 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). In case of divorcee, 'Family Unit' shall consist of individual concerned, unmarried son(s)/unmarried daughter(s) whose custody is given to him/her. In case of widow/widower, 'Family Unit' shall consist of individual concerned, unmarried son(s)/unmarried daughter(s).” Going by the expression “Family Unit”, learned Senior counsel contends that on the date of application the land in question was in the name of father-in-law of the petitioner and accordingly, a father-in-law does not fall within the definition of “Family Unit”. As such, on the date of application, neither the land in question was owned by the petitioner nor by the family unit of the petitioner. 10. Referring to the document at Annexure-C of the affidavit-in-opposition, Mr. Choudhury submits that approval for settlement of 4 Kathas 12 Lechas of land in terms of section 16 of the Land Ceiling Act was granted under the hand of the Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Bajali by order dated 27.6.2013. Pursuant thereto, a Land Certificate was also issued by the Circle Officer, Bajali Revenue Circle on 29.6.2013, followed by the aforesaid Non-Encumbrance Certificate dated 29.6.2013. Relying upon the said documents,, Mr. Choudhury submits that a member of the Family Unit of the petitioner i.e. Sri Manoranjan Sharma became the owner of the land in question on and from 27.6.2013 and not on any earlier date. The facts, therefore, clearly indicate that on the date of submission of the application, the offered land was neither owned by the petitioner nor by the Family Unit of the petitioner. Situated thus, learned Senior counsel contends that there is no infirmity in the order/letter dated 31.7.2013 cancelling the candidature of the petitioner. 11. Mr. The facts, therefore, clearly indicate that on the date of submission of the application, the offered land was neither owned by the petitioner nor by the Family Unit of the petitioner. Situated thus, learned Senior counsel contends that there is no infirmity in the order/letter dated 31.7.2013 cancelling the candidature of the petitioner. 11. Mr. G Sarma, learned counsel representing the private Respondent No.3 submits that consequent upon cancellation of the candidature of the petitioner, a draw for selection was held in which he emerged as the selected candidate, although no Letter of Intent has been issued in view of the interim order of this Court dated 22.8.2013. 12 From the facts above, there is no gain-saying that on the date of submitting application, the land so offered by the petitioner was neither in her name nor in the name of her Family Unit. The available documents also support the submission made by the learned Senior counsel Mr. Choudhury. The only issue that remains to be decided is as to whether the prescription of being the owner of a suitable plot of land at the advertised RGGLV location of the dimension specified is an essential or ancillary condition of the contract. Regard must be had to the fact that clear ownership of land is for the purpose of construction of LPG Cylinder Storage Godown, which Godown is to be maintained at all times without any re-location. This is obviously to obviate any disruption to supply of cylinders to the consumers. Going by the prescription and purpose intended, it is clear that the said clause prescribing ownership of land is an essential condition. It is an inflexible condition and cannot be allowed to be down-played. 13. Considering the facts as narrated above, and having regard to the inflexible condition with regard to ownership of land, the inevitable conclusion is that the writ petition must fail. The order dated 31.7.2013 cancelling the candidature of the petitioner for distributorship on the grounds so indicated does not call for interference of this Court. 14. In view of the above, this writ petition stands dismissed and the parties are left to bear their own costs. 15. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.