JUDGMENT : Nirmaljit Kaur, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order and judgment dated 17.10.2013 passed by learned Single Bench dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The allotment of LPG outlet under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak Yojana (RGGLV) by respondent-Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. to respondents No. 3 to 5 was sought to be quashed and declared illegal with a further prayer to grant the same in favour of the petitioner. 2. The allotment of outlet was challenged basically on two grounds. Firstly, the respondents No.3 to 5 do not hold requisite qualification. The respondent No.3-Vikas Mittal is not a permanent resident of 8 PSD-B, Gharsana and he has obtained a wrong permanent resident certificate dated 29.02.2011 from the office of Tehsildar (Revenue), Gharsana. Similarly, the respondent No.4-Dhanpat Rai is also not a resident of 8 PSD-B, Gharsana, whereas, he has also obtained the wrong permanent resident certificate by submitting wrong and incorrect documents in the office of Tehsildar (Revenue), Gharsana. It was don tended that the petitioner had filed a complaint before the Tehsildar (Revenue), Gharsana against improper issuance of resident certificate dated 29.02.2011 in favour of respondents No.3 & 4-Vikas Mittal and Dhanpat Rai. Accordingly, the Tehsildar, Gharsana vide order dated 10.01.2012 cancelled the permanent resident certificates issued in favour of Vikas and Dhanpat Rai but when the respondent-Corporation still took no action, the petitioner was forced to file the writ petition before this Court, which was dismissed on 17.10.2013. Secondly, the respondents No.3 to 5 do not hold requisite measurement of the land i.e. 20 X 24 meters as per guidelines. The land was joint land. The same had been purchased by the respondents through different sale-deeds from the same seller. The land had not yet been partitioned. 3. While impugning the said judgment, it was contended that as per para 14(ga) of the advertisement inviting application form for allotment of LPG distributorship, the application form was required to be accompanied by the documents specifically demanded, and the failure to produce the same at the time of verification, the application was liable to be rejected. In this case, the respondents did not have the requisite certificate as the certificate itself is dated 11.07.2011. In this case, the respondents did not have the requisite certificate as the certificate itself is dated 11.07.2011. The Bona fide Residents Certificate was cancelled by the Tehsildar, Gharsana and therefore, as per Clause-16 of the Brochure, the allotment in favour of respondent No.3-Vikas Mittal is liable to be cancelled. However, a bona fide resident certificate is required as proof while applying for the allotment of outlet, whereas, the Single Bench took into consideration the Standard Resident Certificate, which cannot be a proof of resident and cannot override the requirement of a bona fide resident certificate. The bona-fide resident certificate having been cancelled, the respondents were ineligible and their candidature should have been cancelled. 4. Learned counsel for the parties were heard. 5. We are unable to disagree with the finding recorded by learned Single Bench that the respondent No.3 had the requisite land as per the specified dimensions. The respondents had duly mentioned the dimensions of the plot owned by them in the application form. The documents of the title of the property were produced on record wherein total area of the land was specified. Moreover, the private respondents had been given the distributorship through draw of lot ruling out any possibility of mala-fide. 6. With respect to the second submission of the appellant that the Bona fide Resident Certificate issued by the Tehsildar Gharsana was cancelled, it may be noticed that the respondent No.3 was issued a Bona fide Resident Certificate on 24.07.2007 by the S.D.O., Khajjuwala and another Bona fide Resident Certificate was issued by the Tehsildar (Revenue), Gharsana on 29.02.2011. However, on a complaint filed by the petitioner, the Bona fide Resident Certificate dated 29.02.2011 issued by the Tehsildar (Revenue), Gharsana was cancelled on 10.01.2012 for the reason that there cannot be two certificates issued in the name of one person. However, as per the requirement of the advertisement, the aspiring applicant should have been a resident of the advertised location and not necessary a permanent resident. Accordingly, the respondent No.3-Vikas Mittal submitted Standard Resident Certificate dated 11.07.2011 issued by the Tehsildar (Revenue), Gharsana certifying that Vikas Mittal was residing at Gharasana for last 10 years. The Field Investigation Team vide letter dated 10.01.2012 requested the Tehsildar (Revenue), Gharsana to verify the issuance of Standard Resident Certificate dated 11.07.2011 in favour of respondent No.3-Vikas Mittal. Accordingly, the respondent No.3-Vikas Mittal submitted Standard Resident Certificate dated 11.07.2011 issued by the Tehsildar (Revenue), Gharsana certifying that Vikas Mittal was residing at Gharasana for last 10 years. The Field Investigation Team vide letter dated 10.01.2012 requested the Tehsildar (Revenue), Gharsana to verify the issuance of Standard Resident Certificate dated 11.07.2011 in favour of respondent No.3-Vikas Mittal. The Tehsildar (Revenue), Gharsana confirmed the same vide letter dated 16.01.2012 that the said certificate was indeed issued from their office. 7. The contention of the appellant that the last date for submission of the application form for allotment of LPG distributorship was 18.11.2010 as per Brochure, whereas, the certificate of the respondent No.3 was issued on 11.7.2011 and he was not in possession of the same at the time of submitting of the application form and is to be rejected, may not be tenable as indisputably, the Oil Companies had issued modification/clarification with regard to selection process of RGGLV vide SL/1111 dated 15.06.2010, and para-1 thereof makes, it abundantly clear that the applicants may be given an opportunity to remove the deficiency in their applications. Rather, it provides that the candidates who have been asked to rectify the deficiencies but not responded by the specified date i.e. 21 days from the date of letter sent would be again intimated by a telegram to immediately contact the concerned officer of OMC giving them 10 days time to submit the required clarifications/documents. Likewise, in para-2 thereof, it is laid down that the applications shall not be rejected on frivolous ground. At the time of examination of the documents, it came to light that the respondents have not attached the Standard Residence Certificate as per the format. Tire private respondents were, accordingly, granted the opportunity to submit the resident certificate as per standard format given in the advertisement, to assess his residential status, vide letter dated 24.06.2011. In these circumstances, the respondent No.3 Vikas Mittal was allowed to submit the Standard Residence Certificate dated 11.07.2011. 8. The appellant, however, questioned the correctness of the Standard Residence Certificate on the ground that the same was based on incorrect information that they were residents of Gharsana. No doubt, it was the specific stand of the appellant that the certificate has been wrongly granted. 8. The appellant, however, questioned the correctness of the Standard Residence Certificate on the ground that the same was based on incorrect information that they were residents of Gharsana. No doubt, it was the specific stand of the appellant that the certificate has been wrongly granted. However, the learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the correctness/genuineness of the Standard Residence Certificate issued in favour of respondents No.3 to 5, before the appropriate authority. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents that in pursuance to the direction of the learned Single Bench, the appellant moved an application/representation assailing the validity of the certificate dated 11.07.2011 issued in favour of the private respondents, before the Tehsildar (Revenue), Gharsana on 30.10.2013 and in pursuance to the said representation, an enquiry was conducted by the Patwari concerned and on the basis of the report of the Patwari, the Tehsildar vide his order dated 12.12.2013 rejected the application/ representation filed by the appellant; and recorded a specific finding that the Standard Residence Certificate which had been issued by the Tehsildar on 11.07.2011 with regard to the resident proof was in order. It is, therefore, obvious that the Standard Residence Certificate is still valid and has not been cancelled till date and nor has the appellant challenged the order dated 12.12.2013 passed by the Tehsildar confirming the authenticity of the Standard Residence Certificate. 9. On the other hand, the appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Bench without challenging the order of the Tehsildar dated 12.12.2013 verifying the Standard Residence Certificate dated 11.07.2011. Two years have passed since then. During this period, the respondents have set up the entire infrastructure and invested huge amount in setting up the outlet. 10. In view of tire above discussion, we are of the opinion that the order impugned does not suffer from any error, requiring interference in this appeal by this Court. Dismissed accordingly.