JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. Issue involved in the present writ petition is as to whether the term “Family Unit” as it finds mention in Clause 4(e) of the brochure issued by respondent No. 1/Indian Oil Corporation Limited, i.e. Brochure on Selection of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) includes the “grand parents” of the applicant or the term “parent” includes only “mother” and “father” of the applicant? 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present case are that Indian Oil Corporation Limited issued an advertisement on 11.10.2010 for the purpose of award for Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGVL) at Sarol in District Chamba under Scheduled Caste category. For the purpose of setting up of LPG Vitraks, respondent/Indian Oil Corporation Limited has issued a brochure, i.e. ‘Brochure on Selection of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV)’. As per the said brochure, common eligibility criteria for all categories who intend to apply for allotment of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak location (hereinafter referred to as ‘the RGGLV location’) is contemplated in Clause 4 of the said brochure, which provides as under: “4. Common Eligibility Criteria for all Categories: Applicant applying for RGGLV should (a) be an Indian citizen (b) be a resident of the town/villages of the advertised RGGLV location (c) have passed minimum Xth Standard examination or equivalent from recognized Board (d) be not less than 21 years and not more than 45 years in age as on the date of application (e) fulfil Multiple dealership/distributorship norm Multiple Dealership/Distributorship norms means that the applicant or any other member of ‘family unit’ should not hold a dealership/distributorship/RGGLV or Letter of Intent (LOI) for a dealership/distributorship/RGGLV of a PSU Oil Company i.e. only one Retail Outlet/SKO-LDO dealership/LPG distributorship/RGGLV of PSU Oil Company will be allowed to a ‘Family Unit’. ‘Family Unit’ in case of married person/applicant, shall consist of individual concerned, his/her Spouse and their unmarried sons/daughters. In case of unmarried person/applicant, ‘Family Unit’ shall consist of individual concerned, his/her parents and his/her unmarried brothers and unmarried sisters. In case of divorcee, ‘Family Unit’ shall consist of individual concerned, unmarried sons/unmarried daughters whose custody is given to him/her. In case of widow/widower, ‘Family Unit’ shall consist of individual concerned, unmarried sons/unmarried daughters. In case of unmarried person/applicant, ‘Family Unit’ shall consist of individual concerned, his/her parents and his/her unmarried brothers and unmarried sisters. In case of divorcee, ‘Family Unit’ shall consist of individual concerned, unmarried sons/unmarried daughters whose custody is given to him/her. In case of widow/widower, ‘Family Unit’ shall consist of individual concerned, unmarried sons/unmarried daughters. (f) have minimum total amount of Rs 2 lakhs put together from Saving accounts in Bank (as on date of application), free and un-encumbered fixed deposits in scheduled banks, Kisan Vikas Patra, NSC, bonds, any other investment, etc in the name of self or family members of the ‘Family Unit’ as defined above. (In case of RGGLV locations reserved under ‘SC/ST’ category, applicants with less than Rs 2 lakhs are also eligible also apply). For evaluation purpose, marks will be awarded to applicants of all categories based on the amount mentioned in the application. (g) own a suitable land (plot) of minimum 20 metre X 24 metre in dimension at the advertised RGGLV location for construction of LPG cylinder Storage Godown. Own means having clear ownership title of the property in the name of applicant/family member of the ‘Family Unit’ as defined in multiple dealershi/distributorship norm. In case of ownership/co-ownership by family member, consent letter from the family member will be required. Land for construction of Godown will be considered suitable, if it is freely accessible through all weather motorable approach road (public road or private road of the applicant connecting to the public road) and should be plain, in one contiguous plot, free from live overhead power transmission or telephone lines. Pipelines/Canals/Drainage/Nallahs should not be passing through the plot. (h) be physically and mentally sound to be able to run the business (i) neither have been convicted nor charges been framed by any Court of Law for any criminal offence involving moral turpitude/economic offences. (j) not be a signatory to distributorship/dealerships agreement, terminated on account of proven cases of malpractice/adulteration of any Oil Company.” 3. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the issuance of advertisement dated 11.10.2010, the petitioner being eligible to apply for RGGLV location at Sarol in District Chamba, she applied for the same. (j) not be a signatory to distributorship/dealerships agreement, terminated on account of proven cases of malpractice/adulteration of any Oil Company.” 3. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the issuance of advertisement dated 11.10.2010, the petitioner being eligible to apply for RGGLV location at Sarol in District Chamba, she applied for the same. Vide communication dated 16.02.2011 (Annexure P-2) on the subject “Application for award of Rajiv Gandhi LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) at Sarol, District Chamba under SC Category advertised on 11.10.2010”, the petitioner was intimated by respondent No.1/Corporation that she had qualified for draw of selection of RGGLV and she was called upon to be present alongwith photo identity card issued by any Government department for draw at 10:00 a.m. on 11.03.2011. It is further the case of the petitioner that at the draw which was held on 11.03.2011 for Sarol location, the petitioner was declared as selected candidate. As per the petitioner, in consonance with the provisions of Clause 12.9 and 12.10 of the brochure after draw, field verification was to be carried out with regard to the selected candidate and in case the information provided by the applicant was found to be correct, then letter of intent was to be issued to the selected candidate and in case of rejection of selected candidate on account of findings in field investigation, the selection of the candidate so selected was required to be cancelled and this was to be followed by fresh draw from amongst remaining qualified eligible candidates. As per the petitioner, despite the fact that she had been selected for Sarol location in the draw which was held on 11.03.2011, no letter of intent was received by her, neither it was even communicated to her that the selection was cancelled. As per the petitioner, it was vide letter dated 01.08.2011 (Annexure P-3) that she came to know that respondent-Corporation had in fact invited the private respondents for fresh draw for Sarol Location, which was scheduled on 26.08.2011. As per the petitioner, this implied that her selection stood cancelled. According to the petitioner, she came to know all these facts on 16.08.2011 when she incidentally happened to come across the said communication. As per the petitioner, this implied that her selection stood cancelled. According to the petitioner, she came to know all these facts on 16.08.2011 when she incidentally happened to come across the said communication. Accordingly, feeling aggrieved by the issuance of communication dated 01.08.2011 (Annexure P-3) vide which the private respondents were invited for draw of lots for allocation of Sarol location in District Chamba under Scheduled Caste category for award of Rajiv Gandhi LPG Vitrak (RGGLV), she filed the present writ petition praying for quashing of letter dated 01.08.2011 and for direction to the respondent/Corporation not to implement letter dated 01.08.2011 and to issue letter of intent in her favour. 4. In its reply filed by the respondent/Corporation, the factum of Sarol location having been advertised on 11.03.2011 and the factum of communication dated 16.02.2011 having been issued to the petitioner and her subsequently participating in the draw of lots on 11.03.2011 is not in dispute. However, as per the said respondent, merely qualifying in the draw was not to be construed as final selection and the final selection in fact depended upon field verification which was to be carried out with regard to the selected candidates. According to the respondent/Corporation, if during field verification, the information given by the applicant in the application was found to be correct, only then letter of intent was to be issued to the selected candidate. As per the respondent/Corporation, vide communication dated 17.08.2011, the petitioner was informed that as during field verifications involving physical verification of the information provided by the petitioner, it was found that plot offered by her for construction of godown at Khasra No. 756/312 was found to be in the name of Shri Guro Ram (grandfather of the present petitioner), who was not a member of her ‘Family Unit’ as defined under multi distributorship norms in the application/advertisement, and as she was also not a co-sharer qua the above land, the said land could not be considered to be owned by her as per multi distributorship norms as given in the application/advertisement. Vide this communication, the petitioner had also been informed that as she did not met the eligibility criteria of owning the suitable plot of minimum 20 meters X 24 meters in dimension in the advertised location for LPG storage godown, she stood disqualified for being issued the letter of intent for RGGLV at Sarol, District Chamba. Vide this communication, the petitioner had also been informed that as she did not met the eligibility criteria of owning the suitable plot of minimum 20 meters X 24 meters in dimension in the advertised location for LPG storage godown, she stood disqualified for being issued the letter of intent for RGGLV at Sarol, District Chamba. It was the stand of the respondent/Corporation that the candidature of the petitioner was not found eligible as she did not had land in the name of self or within “Family Unit” as defined in the advertisement. On these basis, it was submitted on behalf of the respondent/Corporation that there was no arbitrariness or illegality in the issuance of communication dated 01.08.2011 quashing of which was sought by way of the present writ petition. It was further urged on behalf of the respondent/Corporation that as there was no merit in the petition, the same be dismissed. 5. Respondent No. 2 stood proceeded against ex parte and respondent No. 3 adopted the reply filed by respondent No. 1. 6. No rejoinder was intended to be filed by the petitioner to the reply filed by respondent No. 1. 7. Mr. B.C. Negi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that the land offered by her under Sub-clause (g) of Clause 4 of the brochure cannot be construed to be land either owned by the applicant or family member of the ‘Family Unit’ is arbitrary and erroneous. Mr. Negi has argued that it is an admitted fact that in the present case, the land which was offered by the petitioner as contemplated in Sub-clause (g) of Clause 4 of the brochure for construction of LPG storage godown belonged to the grand father of the petitioner. According to Mr. Negi, not construing grand father to be a family member of the “Family Unit” was totally erroneous because by no stretch of imagination grand father of an applicant can be said to be outside the purview of family member as envisaged by the term of “Family Unit”. According to Mr. Negi, a “Family Unit” as defined in the brochure of the respondent/Corporation in case of unmarried applicant was to consist of individual concerned, his/her parents and his/her unmarried brothers and unmarried sisters. According to Mr. Negi, the term “his/her parents” also includes grand parents. According to Mr. Negi, a “Family Unit” as defined in the brochure of the respondent/Corporation in case of unmarried applicant was to consist of individual concerned, his/her parents and his/her unmarried brothers and unmarried sisters. According to Mr. Negi, the term “his/her parents” also includes grand parents. On this analogy, it was argued by Mr. Negi that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that plot offered by her belonged to her grand father was not sustainable in law. To fortify his arguments, Mr. Negi has relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.V. Muthu Vs. Angamuthu Ammal (1997) 2 SCC 53 . 8. On the other hand, Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent/Corporation argued that the term “Family Unit” as defined in Clause 4 of the brochure issued by the respondent/Corporation was unambiguous and very clear as to who all were included in the term “Family Unit”. Mr. Sood argued that in the present case, the petitioner was an unmarried lady and as per Clause 4, “Family Unit” in the case of an unmarried lady was to include her parents which means her mother and father and her unmarried brothers and unmarried sisters. According to Mr. Sood, grand parents were not included in the term parents and were not expressly included in the term “Family Unit” and could not be allowed to be introduced by giving the words “Parents” a wider meaning than what was intended in the brochure published by the respondent/Corporation. Mr. Sood further argued that the judgment being relied upon by the petitioner was having no applicability in the facts of the present case. It was further urged by Mr. Sood that incidentally the definition of “Family Unit” as it finds mention the brochure published by the respondent/Corporation had not been challenged by the petitioner. On these basis, it was submitted by Mr. Sood that there was no force in the arguments of Mr. Negi. 9. Ms. Nishi Goel, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 adopted the arguments of Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Senior Counsel representing respondent/Corporation. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents which have been placed on record by the respective parties. 11. Negi. 9. Ms. Nishi Goel, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 adopted the arguments of Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Senior Counsel representing respondent/Corporation. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents which have been placed on record by the respective parties. 11. Clause 4 of the brochure issued by the respondent/Corporation on Selection of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) for all categories defines “Family Unit” as under: ‘Family Unit’ in case of married person/applicant, shall consist of individual concerned, his/her Spouse and their unmarried sons/daughters. In case of unmarried person/ applicant, ‘Family Unit’ shall consist of individual concerned, his/her parents and his/her unmarried brothers and unmarried sisters. In case of divorcee, ‘Family Unit’ shall consist of individual concerned, unmarried sons/unmarried daughters whose custody is given to him/her. In case of widow/widower, ‘Family Unit’ shall consist of individual concerned, unmarried sons/unmarried daughters. 12. Sub-clause (g) of Clause 4 of the said brochure provides as under: (g) own a suitable land (plot) of minimum 20 metre X 24 metre in dimension at the advertised RGGLV location for construction of LPG cylinder Storage Godown. Own means having clear ownership title of the property in the name of applicant/family member of the ‘Family Unit’ as defined in multiple dealershi/distributorship norm. In case of ownership/co-ownership by family member, consent letter from the family member will be required. Land for construction of Godown will be considered suitable, if it is freely accessible through all weather motorable approach road (public road or private road of the applicant connecting to the public road) and should be plain, in one contiguous plot, free from live overhead power transmission or telephone lines. Pipelines/Canals/Drainage/Nallahs should not be passing through the plot. 13. As per the term “Family Unit” which finds mention in Clause 4 of the above mentioned brochure, the said term in case of married person consists of individual concerned, his/her spouse and their unmarried sons and daughters. In other words, if married person applies for allotment of location under this brochure, then “Family Unit” in case of such like person consists of the said applicant, spouse and un-married children. Neither married children nor their wards, i.e. grand children of the applicant are included in the definition of the term “Family Unit” in case of a married person. In other words, if married person applies for allotment of location under this brochure, then “Family Unit” in case of such like person consists of the said applicant, spouse and un-married children. Neither married children nor their wards, i.e. grand children of the applicant are included in the definition of the term “Family Unit” in case of a married person. Similarly, in case of unmarried person, “Family Unit” is stated to be consisting of individual concerned, his/her parents and his/her unmarried brothers and unmarried sisters. 14. A harmonious reading of the term “Family Unit” as has been defined for a married person and an unmarried person makes it clear that the respondent/Corporation has confined the term “Family Unit” in case of a married applicant to his/her spouse and unmarried children and in case of unmarried applicant to his/her parents and unmarried brothers and sisters. 15. In my considered view, bare reading of the term “Family Unit” as has been provided for in the brochure makes it clear that grand parents are not included in the scheme of things as far as “Family Unit” is concerned. Therefore, I do not find any force in the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the term “Family Unit” in general and the term “Parent” in particular as it finds mention in Clause 4 of the brochure ipso facto includes grand parents also. 16. In Black’s Law Dictionary Seventh Edition term “Parent” has been defined as: “Parent: The lawful father or mother of some one. In ordinary usage, the term denotes more than responsibility for conception and birth. The term commonly includes (1) either the natural father or the natural mother of a child, (2) the adoptive father or adoptive mother of a child, (3) a child’s putative blood parent who has expressly acknowledged paternity, and (4) an individual or agency whose status as guardian has been established by judicial decree. In law, parental status based on any criterion may be terminated by judicial decree.” 17. Similarly, in Corpus Juris Secundum, the term “Parent” has been defined as: “A “parent” is one who has generated a child; is a father or a mother. A “parent” is one who begets or brings forth off-spring; a father or a mother. A “parent” is one who generates a child, a father or mother by blood. Similarly, in Corpus Juris Secundum, the term “Parent” has been defined as: “A “parent” is one who has generated a child; is a father or a mother. A “parent” is one who begets or brings forth off-spring; a father or a mother. A “parent” is one who generates a child, a father or mother by blood. “Parent” in its common and accepted meaning refers to the natural father or mother. The word “parent” means father or mother.” 18. Therefore also, in my considered view, the word “parent” obviously means father and mother and it cannot be said to include “grand parents” within its ambit. 19. As far as the judgment relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is concerned, in the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was seized with the issue as to whether a “foster son” would be a “member of family” in relation to a landlord within the meaning of Section 2(6-A) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. It is evident from para-9 of the said judgment that Section 2(6-A) of the Act in issue provided as under: “2.(6-A) ‘member of his family’ in relation to a landlord means his spouse, son, daughter, grandchild or dependant parent.” 20. While interpreting the said statutory provision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that it appears that the definition is conclusive as the word “means” has been used to specify the members, namely, spouse, son, daughter, grandchild or dependent parent, who would constitute the family. 21. In my considered view, the judgment being relied upon by the petitioner has no bearing in this case because therein the Statute itself envisaged “member of his family” to mean a grandchild, which naturally took into its compass “grand parents” when dealt with from the perspective of the grandchild. It was in this background that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in its ordinary and primary sense, the term “family” signifies the collective body of persons living in one house or under one head or manager or one domestic government and in its restricted sense, “family” would include only parents and their children and it may include even grandchildren and all the persons of the same blood living together. In my considered view, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not been pleased to hold that the term “parent” inherently includes not only father and mother, but also grand father and grand mother. 22. In view of the discussion held above, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the Miscellaneous applications, if any. No order as to costs.