JUDGMENT : A.J. Desai, J. 1. By way of the present petition under Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order/communication dated 20.2.2014 passed by the respondent No. 1 - Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') rejecting his candidature for awarding of LPG Distributorship at Ahmedabad (Sarkhej/Juhapura), District Ahmedabad, State Gujarat in Category - Open, Marketing Plan 2013-14, mainly on the ground that the petitioner was not having an amount of Rs. 15 Lacs in a Scheduled Bank which is provided in Clause No. 6.1 of the guidelines for selection of Regular LPG Distributors, Common Eligibility Criteria. 2. The brief facts arise from the record of the case are as under:-- 2.1 That the respondent - Corporation issued a public advertisement in various daily newspapers in the month of September, 2013 by which, it invited application for LPG Distributorship in various parts of State of Gujarat. By such advertisement, public at large was informed to get guidelines for eligibility, infrastructure requirements of land for LPG godown, showroom etc; personally from a particular place by paying an amount of Rs. 50/- or can be downloaded free of cost from the relevant website. It was also declared by the said advertisement that the applications for distributorship along with all enclosures shall be submitted so as to reach the concerned office before 31.10.2013. Apart from the guidelines issued by the respondent Corporation, general conditions were also referred in the said advertisement and all candidates were asked to fill up the application before the cut off date i.e. 31.10.2013 and were asked to provide all information sought against various items mentioned in the application form. It was also published in the advertisement that if a person is selected, he has to provide all the original documents before the field verification of credentials committee which is established under the guidelines of selection of Regular LPG Distributorship applicable to all locations advertised/readvertised from May 2013 onwards. 2.2 The petitioner submitted an application with relevant documents providing necessary information as per the advertisement as well as the aforesaid guidelines. The Field Verification of Credentials (FVC) took place on 27.1.2014 wherein it was found that the petitioner was lacking one of the important conditions i.e. not having deposit of Rs. 15 Lacs in a Scheduled Bank. 2.2 The petitioner submitted an application with relevant documents providing necessary information as per the advertisement as well as the aforesaid guidelines. The Field Verification of Credentials (FVC) took place on 27.1.2014 wherein it was found that the petitioner was lacking one of the important conditions i.e. not having deposit of Rs. 15 Lacs in a Scheduled Bank. Having found non-compliance of one of the conditions, the petitioner addressed a letter to the Area Manager of the respondent Corporation on 29.1.2014 and declared that he was not aware that the amount of Rs. 15 Lacs lying in Bank, namely, Ahmedabad District Cooperative Bank, is not a Scheduled Bank and requested to consider the case since he is having another account in a Scheduled Bank, namely, Kotak Mahindra Bank and accordingly, he supplied the details to the respondent Corporation on 14.2.2014. 2.3 Since the respondent Corporation having found that the application submitted by the petitioner does not fulfill the above referred criteria, passed the impugned order dated 20.2.2014 and rejecting the candidature of the petitioner though he was selected in a draw system. Hence, this petition. 3. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the respondent Corporation has appeared through learned advocate Ms. Minoo Shah and filed affidavit-in-reply and opposed this petition. Affidavit-in-rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioner in response to the reply filed by the respondent Corporation. 4. Mr. Prabhav Mehta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner by taking me through the impugned communication/order dated 20.2.2014 would submit that there is no dispute that the petitioner is fulfilling all the criterias as per the guidelines except that the amount of Rs. 15 Lacs was not lying in a savings account of a scheduled bank. He would submit that an amount of Rs. 15,07,118/- was lying in Ahmedabad District Cooperative Bank which is a cooperative bank and is affiliated with the Gujarat State Cooperative Bank Limited, Ahmedabad which has already a status of Scheduled Bank and, therefore, the respondent Corporation ought not to have rejected his candidature only on this ground. 4.1 He would submit that as per Clause 6.1 (vi) of guidelines on selection of Regular LPG Distributorship attached to the application, the person who intends to apply for the same has to keep minimum total amount of Rs. 4.1 He would submit that as per Clause 6.1 (vi) of guidelines on selection of Regular LPG Distributorship attached to the application, the person who intends to apply for the same has to keep minimum total amount of Rs. 15 Lacs in a Scheduled Bank, Post Office, Fixed Deposits in Scheduled Banks, Fixed Deposit in Post Office and even in listed companies etc. and, therefore, having an amount of Rs. 15 Lacs in a non-scheduled Bank, should not have been given much weightage for rejecting his candidature. He would submit that before passing the order dated 20.2.2014, when the petitioner has submitted the details of account of the Scheduled Bank having more than Rs. 15 Lacs, the authority should have accepted the case of the petitioner at the time of Field Verification examination. He would submit that when the petitioner had produced the details of his bank account of Kotak Mahindra Bank which is a Scheduled Bank and having balance of Rs. 15,59,165.41 ps., the respondent Corporation ought not to have rejected his application on a flimsy ground that on the date of the application, the petitioner had no funds of Rs. 15 Lacs in a Scheduled Bank though he had produced correct details about the amount lying in a non-scheduled Bank which is affiliated with the scheduled Bank. 4.2 He would submit that this condition is not a critical one and the same can be waived by the respondent Corporation and, therefore, the respondent Corporation should have fairly dealt with the case of the petitioner. 4.3 In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the unreported decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Poddar Steel Corporation v. M/s. Ganesh Engineering Works and others, Civil Appeal No. 2272 of 1991 decided on 6.5.1991 and submitted that the bidder who had not deposited Banker's cheque issued by the Bank which was specifically mentioned in the advertisement, cannot be a reason for rejecting such tender. As per his submission, in this case also, the petitioner was successful in establishing that he was in a proper financial condition as per the guidelines i.e. having more than fund of Rs. 15 Lacs in a Bank. He, therefore, would submit that the petition be allowed and the order be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, Ms. 15 Lacs in a Bank. He, therefore, would submit that the petition be allowed and the order be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, Ms. Minoo Shah, learned advocate appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed this petition and would submit that the respondent Corporation has not committed any error in passing the impugned order since the petitioner, though fully aware about the criteria for getting LPG Distributorship, has not complied with one of the most basic and important condition that he is not having minimum amount of Rs. 15 Lacs in a Scheduled Bank in Savings Account. She would submit that when the advertisement was published by the respondent Corporation, it was categorically disclosed that with regard to eligibility criteria of an individual for LPG Distributorship, detailed guidelines were made available at the cost of Rs. 50/- as well as interested person can download the said guidelines by using a website without paying any charges. She would submit that guideline No. 6.1 (vi), which makes amply clear that applicant shall have an amount of Rs. 15 Lacs in Savings Bank account in Scheduled Bank or Post Office or invested in Fixed Deposit in Scheduled Bank, listed Companies/Government Organization/Public Sector Undertakings of State and Central Government, Kisan Vikas Patra, NSC Bonds, Shares of Listed Companies, Listed Mutual Funds, ULIP PPF, Surrender value of LIC Policies etc. Even the check list supplied along with the application for getting Distributorship, Serial No. 12 of check list amply makes it clear that the person was required to confirm that he will be eligible only if he is having an amount of Rs. 15 Lacs in the Scheduled Bank. 6.1 By taking me through the copy of the application submitted by the petitioner, she would submit that the petitioner had signed the said application and has put his correct mark in the column against Serial No. 12 of the check list i.e. having Rs. 15 Lacs in Scheduled Bank though the said amount has been found in a non-Scheduled Bank. She, therefore, would submit that the petitioner now cannot say that he was not aware that Ahmedabad District Cooperative Bank in which the petitioner was having Savings Account and balance of Rs. 15 Lacs was not the Scheduled Bank. She would further submit that it is an important condition precedent to be considered for LPG Distributorship. She, therefore, would submit that the petitioner now cannot say that he was not aware that Ahmedabad District Cooperative Bank in which the petitioner was having Savings Account and balance of Rs. 15 Lacs was not the Scheduled Bank. She would further submit that it is an important condition precedent to be considered for LPG Distributorship. She would submit that the application was submitted by the petitioner before 31.10.2013 and was bound to provide all information against various items mentioned in the application form itself which would be subsequently verified before the Field Verification Credentials of selected candidate. Therefore, producing a bank account of another Scheduled Bank by the petitioner having an amount of Rs. 15 Lacs on 14.2.2014 would not help the petitioner since the verification was made in January, 2014. He would submit that the Company had published a notice for Distributorship in the entire State of Gujarat for about 133 places and invited such applications and, therefore, if the candidate selected in a draw system falls short of any criteria provided under the guidelines, the respondent Corporation cannot subsequently permit such person to rectify the same. She would submit that the petitioner was fully aware that an amount of Rs. 15 Lacs in a Scheduled Bank was one of the important criteria and, therefore, while submitting the application, the petitioner has referred two accounts, one of Scheduled Bank and another of non-Scheduled Bank in which Rs. 15 Lacs were lying. When the application was submitted by the petitioner, an amount of Rs. 69,193/- was lying in the account of the Scheduled Bank, namely, Kotak Mahindra. However, the petitioner has neither produced any detail about the amount lying as on 31.10.2013 i.e. the cut-off date. However, the details produced along with the petition with regard to Kotak Mahindra is from November, 2013 to 14.2.2014 i.e. date on which the petitioner had tried to rectify his mistake. By taking me through the said statement of account of Kotak Mahindra Bank, she would submit that whatever the transactions have taken place in the said account, an amount of Rs. 15,59,165.41 ps. is the result of several transactions between November 2013 to February 2014 and, therefore, the petitioner is not right in submitting that he was having Rs. 15 Lacs on hand in a Scheduled Bank which has no relevance. 15,59,165.41 ps. is the result of several transactions between November 2013 to February 2014 and, therefore, the petitioner is not right in submitting that he was having Rs. 15 Lacs on hand in a Scheduled Bank which has no relevance. 6.2 She has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shashikant Yadav v. Indian Oil Corporation and others, (2007) 4 SCC 410 , wherein it has been held that if correct and true facts which is necessary requirement for getting a Dealership is not disclosed by a candidate, though he might have granted Dealership, the same can be cancelled. She has also relied upon the unreported decision rendered by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Girishbhai Dhanabhai Patel v. Union of India and another dated 13.10.2015 rendered in Special Civil Application No. 6558 of 2015 which involves breach of Clause 6 (vi) of the Guidelines and it has been held that if it is found breach of the guidelines, the selected candidate can be refused to grant dealership of LPG. 6.3 She has also relied upon the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Gariyadhar Taluka Cooperative Purchase and Sales Union Limited v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, rendered in Special Civil Application No. 15072 of 2014 dated 22.2.2016, wherein the Division Bench has held that the conditions are required to be fulfilled for getting a dealership. She, therefore, would submit that the petition be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. It is an undisputed fact that when the respondent Corporation published an advertisement in the local daily for LPG Distributorship in several parts of the State of Gujarat, it was made clear in Clause No. 4 that the person interested is required to go through the guidelines for making himself eligible for getting the dealership. Clause 4 of the said advertisement reads as under:-- "4. Detailed guidelines on eligibility, infrastructure requirements of land for LPG godown, Showroom, infrastructure for Home delivery of cylinders etc. along with the details of selection process are given in the Brochure, which can be collected personally from the address mentioned at para 9 below at a cost of 50/-. It can also be downloaded free of cost from the website - www.iocl.com, www.ebharatgas.com, www.bharatpetroleum.in and www.hindustanpetroleum.com of IOCL, BPCL and HPCL." 8. along with the details of selection process are given in the Brochure, which can be collected personally from the address mentioned at para 9 below at a cost of 50/-. It can also be downloaded free of cost from the website - www.iocl.com, www.ebharatgas.com, www.bharatpetroleum.in and www.hindustanpetroleum.com of IOCL, BPCL and HPCL." 8. Clause 9 of the advertisement provides the cut-off date which reads as under:-- "9. Application for LPG Distributorship along with enclosures complete in all respect and Non-refundable application fee by a Demand Draft/Pay Order drawn on any Scheduled Bank must be submitted so as to reach the office address mentioned below before the close of office on 31.10.2013." 9. General conditions mentioned in the advertisement which are referred in Clause 11, more particularly, 11 (e) and 11 (i) are relevant for the case which are reproduced herein below:-- "11 (e) Applications received after cut-off date including postal delay will not be considered. No correspondence will be entertained by respective Oil Company in such cases. 11 (i) Applicant must provide all information sought against various items mentioned in the Application form. If selected, at the time of verification, the applicant will have to provide all documents in original in support of the information furnished in the application. Failure to present these documents in original at the time of verification will result in cancellation of selection along with forfeiture of the amount deposited by the selected candidate before the Field Verification of Credentials (FVC)." 10. From the above facts, it is clear that respondent Corporation has made aware all the interested persons to go through the eligibility criteria and to provide all the information on or before 31.10.2013 and subsequent to that date, if any application is received, the same was not to be considered as per Clause 11 (i) of the advertisement. It was made clear that Field Verification Credentials (FVC) of the selected candidate shall be made. As stated herein above, the petitioner was selected for dealership in a draw system provided under the guidelines itself. However, when the Field Verification Credentials of the petitioner were examined, it was found that Rs. 15 Lacs were not lying in the savings account with the Scheduled Bank. As stated herein above, the petitioner was selected for dealership in a draw system provided under the guidelines itself. However, when the Field Verification Credentials of the petitioner were examined, it was found that Rs. 15 Lacs were not lying in the savings account with the Scheduled Bank. It is pertinent to note that the case of the petitioner has not been considered in view of Clause 6.1 (vi) of the guidelines which is an important one and the same is reproduced for ready reference:-- "6.1 (vi) Have minimum total amount of Rs. 15 Lakhs for Urban Markets and Rs. 10 Lakhs for Urban-Rural and Rural Markets respectively as the closing balance on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any). This amount is to be arrived at by adding amount in Savings Bank Accounts in Scheduled Bank/Post Office, free and un-encumbered Fixed Deposits in Scheduled Banks, Post Office, Listed Companies/Government Organization/Public Sector Undertaking of State and Central Government, Kisan Vikas Patra, NSC, Bonds, Shares of Listed Companies, Listed Mutual Funds, ULIP, PPF, Surrender value of LIC Policies in the name of Applicant or family members of the 'Family Unit' of the Applicant as defined above. In case of locations reserved under 'SC/ST' category, minimum total amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs for Urban Markets and Rs. 2.5 Lakhs for Urban-Rural and Rural markets respectively should be available as the closing balance on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any)." 11. It is further pertinent to note that when the application was submitted by the petitioner, he was aware and had confirmed having minimum fund of Rs. 15 Lacs in a Scheduled Bank though Ahmedabad District Cooperative Bank is not a Scheduled Bank. Serial No. 12 of the check-list which is filed along with the application and signed by the petitioner reads as under:-- "12. I confirm that I am having the required minimum funds of Rs. 15.0 Lakhs for Urban & Rs. 10.0 Lakhs for Urban-Rural & Rural (Rs. 5.0 Lakhs for Urban & Rs. 2.5 Lakhs for Urban-Rural & Rural in case of SC/ST category) as per the eligibility criteria given at Clause No. 6.1 (vi) of the Brochure. (Please also refer to item No. 11 and 12 of "General Instructions to the Candidates applying for LPG Distributorship"). 10.0 Lakhs for Urban-Rural & Rural (Rs. 5.0 Lakhs for Urban & Rs. 2.5 Lakhs for Urban-Rural & Rural in case of SC/ST category) as per the eligibility criteria given at Clause No. 6.1 (vi) of the Brochure. (Please also refer to item No. 11 and 12 of "General Instructions to the Candidates applying for LPG Distributorship"). I also confirm that amount maintained in the joint account with members outside the "Family Unit" are not mentioned in my application." 12. Combined reading of all the above referred Clauses makes it very clear that the respondent Corporation from the beginning had declared that only those persons should be selected and finalized if all criteria provided either under the guidelines or the conditions mentioned in the advertisement are fulfilled, shall be selected and dealership shall be granted to them. However, the petitioner was lacking one of the important guidelines that he was not having required minimum funds of Rs. 15 Lacs in the Scheduled Bank and, therefore, in my opinion, the respondent Corporation has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. It is also pertinent to note that the statement of account of Scheduled Bank which has been produced by the petitioner is subsequent to the cut-off date i.e. 31.10.2013. The said account shows the transaction between November 2013 to 14.2.2014 which is not relevant since the cut-off date had lapsed way back in the month of October, 2013. Even as per the submission of Ms. Minoo Shah, pursuant to the advertisement, the LPG Distributorship is also awarded to a third person and it is operational till date. 13. In the case of Shashikant (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that any factual misstatement or declaration is made by a candidate, the Corporation was not wrong in cancelling the allotment granted to him. In the present case also, the petitioner while submitting the application, in check-list at Serial No. 12, has declared that he is having Rs. 15 Lacs in a Scheduled Bank though the same was not there and it was in the non-Scheduled Bank. In the present case also, the petitioner while submitting the application, in check-list at Serial No. 12, has declared that he is having Rs. 15 Lacs in a Scheduled Bank though the same was not there and it was in the non-Scheduled Bank. I have also gone through the decisions rendered by the coordinate Bench of this Court dated 13.10.2015 in Special Civil Application No. 6558 of 2015 and also the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Gariyadhar Taluka Cooperative Purchase and Sales Union Limited v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, rendered in Special Civil Application No. 15072 of 2014 dated 22.2.2016. I am in agreement with the observations made in the above referred orders passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court. 14. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in the present petition and accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.