JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. By way of instant writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- ? (i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may be issued and the order dated 28.10.2011 Annexure P-5 may kindly be quashed and set-aside. (ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents to issue award letter in favour of the petitioner for Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak at Parwara, District Mandi, H.P. 2. Briefly stated facts, as emerged from the record are that pursuant to the advertisement, issued by the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the =Corporation'), present petitioner applied on prescribed format (Annexure P-1) for the award of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (hereinafter referred to as =RGGLV') at Parwara, District Mandi, H.P. It further emerged from the record that the application of the petitioner alongwith similarly situated persons was scrutinized by the Corporation and after scrutiny petitioner was found eligible for further process, since, she had procured minimum qualifying marks i.e. 80. Thereafter, vide communication (Annexure P-3), dated 6.6.2011, Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Shimla intimated the present petitioner that pursuant to her application for award of =RGGLV' at Parwara, District Mandi, H.P., under open category, she has qualified for draw for selection of =RGGLV' and as such, she was requested to be present alongwith photo identity card issued by any Government department for the draw at 10:00 AM on 01.07.2011 at the address given in the letter (Annexure P-3). 3. It also appears from the record that after issuance of aforesaid letter dated 6.6.2011, Field Officer of the corporation, visited the plot offered by the petitioner as well as other similarly situated persons to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of the information furnished on the prescribed format by the petitioner and other applicants in terms of the advertisement issued by the corporation. Finally, vide communication dated 28.10.2011 (Annexure P-5), General Manager (LPG)PSO, Chandigarh, intimated the present petitioner that her candidature for =RGGLV' at Parwara, District Mandi, H.P. stands rejected for following reasons:- ? (i) The plots offered by you (khasra No.1005) was not found suitable for the construction of godown as the same is less than the minimum required dimensions of 20 meter x24 meter as mentioned in the above said advertisement. (i) The plots offered by you (khasra No.1005) was not found suitable for the construction of godown as the same is less than the minimum required dimensions of 20 meter x24 meter as mentioned in the above said advertisement. (ii) Another plot offered in the application at khasra No.994 was not found suitable for the construction of godown as the same is not approachable because it is covered on all sides by the land owned by others. (iii) Land offered at Khasra No.1003 to the FVC committee, is not found owned by the applicant or by any member of the =family unit' as given in multi distributorship norms.? 4. Petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid letter (Annexure P-5), filed an representation (Annexure P-6), dated 4.11.2011 stating therein that plot bearing khasra No.994 is not covered by anybody else and it is very crystal clear in the revenue paper. Secondly, petitioner stated that though width of khasra No.1005 is less than 20 metres and the length is about 40 metres, but owner of adjacent khara No.1003 has agreed to exchange the land and in this regard, he also filed affidavit where he has consented to exchange the land for the construction of godown. In nutshell, the petitioner stated that she and her family members has preferred khasra No.1005 with the help of khasra No.1003 and so did the verification team but if the plot is not suitable, she is ready to construct the godown on khasra No.994. But it appears that aforesaid representation filed by the present petitioner was also rejected and as such, she was compelled to file instant Civil Writ Petition seeking reliefs as have been reproduced hereinabove. 5. Respondents by way of detailed reply, refuted all the contentions contained in the writ petition and stated that petitioner has failed to establish any breach of statutory duty and obligation towards them, no prejudice, whatsoever, has been caused to her and as such, present petition deserve to be dismissed. 6. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Ms. Abhilasha Kaundal, Advocate, for the petitioner, vehemently argued that impugned order dated 28.10.2011 (Annexure P-5) is not based upon the factual position existing on the spot, which was duly verified by the Field Officer, deputed by the corporation to inspect the plots offered by the petitioner pursuant to the advertisement. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Ms. Abhilasha Kaundal, Advocate, for the petitioner, vehemently argued that impugned order dated 28.10.2011 (Annexure P-5) is not based upon the factual position existing on the spot, which was duly verified by the Field Officer, deputed by the corporation to inspect the plots offered by the petitioner pursuant to the advertisement. Mr. Bhushan, further argued that pursuant to her application, she was found eligible to be considered for allotment of =RGGLV' and accordingly vide communication dated 6.6.2011 (Annexure P-3), she was declared qualified for draw of selection of =RGGLV' scheduled to be held on 1.7.2011. As per Mr. Bhushan, vide application (Annexure P-1), petitioner had offered two plots i.e. khasra No.994 and khasra No.1005, which was 20 meters in width and 40 meters in length and both the plots were in conformity to the dimensions provided under the advertisement and as such, there was no occasion, whatsoever, for the corporation to reject the candidature of the petitioner for allotment of =RGGLV'. As per Mr. Bhushan, that once vide communication dated 6.6.2011, petitioner was declared eligible to be considered for allotment of =RGGLV', there was no occasion, for the corporation to declare her unfit vide communicated dated 28.10.2011. Mr. Bhushan, while inviting attention of this Court to Annexure P-5 i.e. communication dated 28.10.2011, forcibly contended that reasons assigned by the corporation while rejecting the candidature of the present petitioner, are contrary to factual position existing at the spot. He contended that at first instance, khasra No.994 was offered by the present petitioner for construction of godown and dimensions of this plot was strictly in terms of standards provided in the advertisement as well as brochure (Annexure P-2), but corporation solely with a view to oust the present petitioner, came up with the plea that khasra No.994 is not suitable for the construction of godown as the same is not approachable because it is covered on all sides by the land owned by the others. In this regard, Mr. Bhushan, invited the attention of this Court to the report furnished by the Local Commissioner appointed by this Court, wherein Local Commissioner in his report has submitted as under:- REPORT ON POINTS No. 1 to 4 The Hon'ble High Court has constituted the Commission vide its order dated 04.01.2013 in CWP No.9773/2011, comprising of Sub-Divisional Magistrate Gohar, Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Gohar. The Commission visited the site on dated 02.03.2013 and report is as under:- 1. There exist a PWD main road MDR Kandha Pandoh road from which Km.6/200 there is a link road namely Kelodhar Parwara having length 7/ 265 upto Majhol village. 2. This road is fair weather motorable road and HRTC bus regularly plying on this road. 3. The link road is all weather road. 4. From the PWD link road Majhol at Km 7/265 there is a link road constructed by the Block department having length 230 meter up to Primary School Majhol and 50 meter up to khasra No.994 Muhal Parwara. Only light Transport Vehicle can ply up to the petitioner plot comprised in khasra No.994 situated in muhal Parwara.? 7. Mr. Bhushan, learned counsel forcibly contended that aforesaid report submitted by the petitioner itself, falsify the stand taken by the corporation that khasra No.994 is not approachable and same is covered on all sides by the land owned by the others. Similarly, Mr. Bhushan, stated that another plot bearing khasra No.1005 was also suitable for the construction of godown, but corporation rejected the same on very flimsy grounds. Mr. Bhushan, invited the attention of the Court to Annexure P-4 i.e. affidavit tendered by one Sh.Jalam Singh, who categorically stated that he is ready and willing to exchange khasra No.1005 with khasra No.1003 and he has no objection, in case godown of =RGGLV' is constructed on khasra No.1003. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Bhushan, strenuously argued that careful perusal of Local Commissioner report, as have been reproduced hereinabove, clearly belies the stand taken by the corporation in letter dated 28.10.2011, wherein it has been categorically concluded by the Local Commissioner that PWD link road Majhol at Km 7/265 is a link road constructed by the Block department having length 230 meter up to primary School Majhol and 50 meters up to khasra No.994 muhal Parwara. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Bhushan, prayed that the present petition deserve to be allowed with the direction to the respondent-corporation to make allotment of this =RGGLV' in favour of the petitioner being most eligible candidate. 8. Mr. K.D.Sood, Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Bhushan, prayed that the present petition deserve to be allowed with the direction to the respondent-corporation to make allotment of this =RGGLV' in favour of the petitioner being most eligible candidate. 8. Mr. K.D.Sood, Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Advocate, representing the respondent-corporation, refuted the claim put forth on behalf of the petitioner by stating that no injustice, whatsoever, has been caused to the petitioner by any action of the corporation, rather corporation has acted strictly in conformity with the rules and regulations as prescribed under the brochure containing condition for selection of =RGGLV'. Mr. Sood, contended that pursuant to application (Annexure P-1), filed by the petitioner, her case was duly considered by field verifying agency of the corporation, who found both the plots offered by the petitioner not suitable for construction of godown and as such, present petition deserve to be dismissed being devoid of any merits. 9. As per Mr. Sood, vide communication dated 6.6.2011 (Annexure P-3), petitioner was only declared qualified for draw for selection of =RGGLV' and on the basis of the same, she cannot claim that she was selected for =RGGLV' in terms of advertisement (Annexure P-1). Mr. Sood, while inviting attention of this Court to communication dated 6.6.2011 (Annexure P-3), contended that it clearly suggests that same was issued in terms of clause-12 of Brochure, wherein complete procedure has been laid down to deal with the application received by the corporation, pursuant to advertisement Annexure P-1. Mr. Sood, also invited the attention of this Court to various conditions contained in the Brochure for selection of =RGGLV' to demonstrate that application of the petitioner was dealt with in accordance with the provisions contained in the brochure and at no point of time, corporation made any departure from the same. While referring to clause 12.2 of the brochure, Mr. Sood, stated that selection, if any, at preliminary stage, was to be done by draw of lots out of all eligible applicants securing minimum qualifying marks i.e. 80%. Since, petitioner had secured minimum 80% marks on the basis of information furnished in the application, she was informed vide communication dated 6.6.2011 that draw of lots would be made on 1.7.2011. Sood, stated that selection, if any, at preliminary stage, was to be done by draw of lots out of all eligible applicants securing minimum qualifying marks i.e. 80%. Since, petitioner had secured minimum 80% marks on the basis of information furnished in the application, she was informed vide communication dated 6.6.2011 that draw of lots would be made on 1.7.2011. But, as per clause 12.9, field verification was to be carried out by Field Verifying Staff qua the land offered by the selected candidate and if the information given in the application is/was not found to be correct, no letter of intent could be issued. As per Mr. Sood, in terms of clause 12.9, spot inspection in case of present petitioner was conducted by field verifying agency, who informed that plot bearing khasra No.994 is not suitable for construction of godown since the same is not approachable because it was covered on all sides by the land owned by others. The filed verifying committee also reported that khasra No.1005 is also not suitable for construction of godown since area is less than the minimum required dimensions of 20 x 24 meters, as mentioned in the advertisement as well as brochure (Annexure P-2). Another proposal put forth on behalf of the present petitioner i.e. khasra No.1003 was also not found suitable by the committee since same was not owned by the petitioner or any member of the =family unit' as given in multiple dealership/distributorship norm provided under the brochure, as referred hereinabove. Mr. Sood, vehemently argued that in view of the aforesaid specific report rendered by field verifying agency, case of the petitioner could not be considered at all for allotment of =RGGLV' at Parwara, District Mandi, HP and as such, there is no illegality and infirmity in the order dated 28.10.2011, whereby candidature of the petitioner was rejected specifically detailing therein the reasons for not considering the case of the petitioner. While referring to the contention put forth on behalf of the petitioner that the Local Commissioner, specifically reported that khasra No.994 is abutted to the road, Mr. Sood, stated that inspection was carried out on 2.3.2013 and Commissioner submitted the report before the Hon, ble Court on 17th March April, 2013, to which corporation filed objection on 22nd April, 2013. Mr. Sood, stated that inspection was carried out on 2.3.2013 and Commissioner submitted the report before the Hon, ble Court on 17th March April, 2013, to which corporation filed objection on 22nd April, 2013. Mr. Sood, forcibly contended that link road does not satisfy the requirement of the corporation as per its policy and as such, the plot offered by the petitioner is not suitable and the case of the petitioner cannot be considered for LPG distributorship. 10. As per Mr. Sood, even for the sake of arguments, if it is presumed that link road connects with khasra No.994, same may not satisfy the conditions as contained under the brochure, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that for the construction of godown, land should be minimum dimensions 20 x24 meters and it should be freely accessible through all weather motorable approach road. As per Mr. Sood, report of Local Commissioner itself reflects that no straight road goes to khara No.994, rather from PWD link road Majhol, there is a link road constructed by the Block Department having length 230 meter up to primary School, Majhol and 50 meter upto khasra No.994 muhal Parwara, which means there is no sufficient road, on which truck carrying LPG cylinder can ply. Mr. Sood, while concluding his arguments, forcibly contended that petitioner has no right, whatsoever, to claim distributorship, if any, in terms of the advertisement issued by the corporation, rather corporation is well within its right to adjudge the suitability of plot offered by the petitioner as well as other applicants. Moreover, selection, if any, can be made only in terms of policy/guidelines i.e. brochure. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well carefully gone through the record. 12. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it would be profitable to reproduce relevant provisions contained in the brochure for selection of =RGGLV'as under:- 1. Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak ( RGGLV) Yognya Locations for setting up of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) are identified broadly based on potential of average monthly sale of 600 LPG Cylinders of 14.2 Kg and 1800 customers with monthly per capita consumption of about 5 Kg. The assessment of refill sale potential is based on several factors including population, population growth rate, economic prosperity of the location and the distance from the existing nearest distributor. The assessment of refill sale potential is based on several factors including population, population growth rate, economic prosperity of the location and the distance from the existing nearest distributor. Setting up of RGGLV at the identified location is a business proposition and has normal business risks and does not guarantee any assured returns or profits or any quantum of refill sale. It is extremely important to note that proprietor of RGGLV himself operates it and if need be he may employee one person for assistance. 4. Common Eligibility criteria for all categories:- (e)….. = 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). (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 dealership/distributorship norms. 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. 7. Basic Facilities Required for Operation of RGGLV RGGLV would require a storage Godown approved and licensed by Chief Controller of Explosives of Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organization (PESO) for storage of LPG in cylinders. A showroom of the dimensions 2.6mx3 m can be constructed near the Godown or in an existing nearby shop. For construction of Godown, land should be Minimum Dimensions 20 meter x24 meter. A showroom of the dimensions 2.6mx3 m can be constructed near the Godown or in an existing nearby shop. For construction of Godown, land should be Minimum Dimensions 20 meter x24 meter. It would be freely accessible through all weather motorable approach road (public road of 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. RGGLV will not be required to deliver LPG cylinders at the residence of the customers. LPG cylinders will be given to the customers from the authorized licensed LPG Godown at the Retail Selling Price (RSP). 12. SELECTION PROCESS 12.1 A Committee consisting of two Officers of the concerned Oil Company will do scrutiny of the application and award marks to the applicants based on the information given in the application. 12.2. Selection will be done by draw of lot out of all eligible applicants securing minimum qualifying marks. Minimum qualifying marks is 60% for locations reserved under SC/ST Category and minimum 80% marks for all other category locations. 12.3 The list of ineligible applicants, eligible but not qualified applicants and qualified applicants for draw of lot will be made available on the notice board of the concerned office of the Oil Company as well as on the website of the concerned Oil Company. 12.4 All the applicants will be individually informed about the status of their application. Ineligible and eligible but not qualified applicants can representations within 15 days from the date of the letter. 12.5 Efforts would be made by Oil Company to ensure that all the representation/complaints are disposed off within three months. 12.6 After disposed of representations/complaints, if any, all the eligible candidates who have qualified will be asked to report at a specified place on specified date and time for draw of lot. The same will be notified in the local newspapers. Each qualified candidates will be issued a token number and this token number will be recorded on his/her application. 12.7 All token numbers will be put in an empty box in the presence of the candidates, the officials of the Company and the invited guest from amongst the local MP, MLA, Zila Parishad, Panchayat Samiti Chairman, Sarpanch, Revenue Officials etc. Each qualified candidates will be issued a token number and this token number will be recorded on his/her application. 12.7 All token numbers will be put in an empty box in the presence of the candidates, the officials of the Company and the invited guest from amongst the local MP, MLA, Zila Parishad, Panchayat Samiti Chairman, Sarpanch, Revenue Officials etc. However, a quorum comprising of at least 50% of the candidate (whose names are there in the draw) and the concerned company officials could be sufficient to proceed with the draw of lots. The proceeding of the draw will be Video graphed. 12.8 One token number will be drawn out and the candidate to whom the token number was allotted will be declared as selected candidate. 12.9 Field verification will be carried out for the selected candidate and if the information given in the application by the applicant is found to be correct, Letter of Intent will be issued to the selected candidate. 12.10 In case of rejection of selected candidate due to findings in the Field Investigation or if selected candidate is unable to develop facilities for Rajiv Gandhi LPG Vitrak within the specified time, then his candidature will be cancelled and draw will be held again from the remaining qualified eligible candidates to select the next candidate following the procedure as mentioned above in para 12.3 to 12.6.? 13. Aforesaid conditions contained in the brochure, clearly suggests that =RGGLV Yogna' launched on 16th October, 2009, which aims at setting up small size LPG distribution Agencies in order to increase rural penetration and to cover remote as well as low potential areas. In the present case, petitioner vide Annexure P-1, applied for =RGGLV' offering therein two plots bearing khasra No.994 and 1005. As per clause-3 of the brochure, reproduced hereinabove, selection, if any, was to be made vide draw of lots out of all eligible candidates securing qualifying marks, wherein minimum qualifying marks is 60% for location reserved SC/ST category and minimum 80% marks for all other category locations. It appears that since petitioner, who had applied in general category had procured 80% marks, was invited for draw of lot vide communicated dated 6.6.2011. It appears that since petitioner, who had applied in general category had procured 80% marks, was invited for draw of lot vide communicated dated 6.6.2011. This Court after perusing the aforesaid provisions of clause-3 of the brochure, is unable to accept the contention put forth on behalf of the petitioner that she should selected vide communication dated 6.6.2011, whereby she was declared qualified for draw for selection of =RGGLV'. Clause-3 of the brochure, clearly provides that selection would only done by draw of lots out of all eligible applicants securing minimum qualifying marks, meaning thereby, by aforesaid process, corporation had only to do screening of all the applicants, who had applied pursuant to the advertisement issued by the corporation for =RGGLV'. In the instant case, since petitioner had secured minimum 80% marks, she was declared qualified for draw of selection. 14. In the instant case, petitioner offered two plots, as have been referred hereinabove, this Court after perusing the material available on record is fully convinced and satisfied that the corporation has rightly not considered the case of the present petitioner for construction of godown on khasra No.1005 and thereafter an alternate site offered by the petitioner by furnishing an affidavit of one Sh. Jalam Singh, wherein he agreed to give land of khasra No.1003 to the petitioner in exchange of khasra No.1005 because bare perusal of the document available on record suggest that khasra No.1005 was not suitable for construction of godown since the same was less than dimension 20x24 meters as prescribed under brochure. Though, petitioner by furnishing affidavit on record made by Jalam Singh prayed that her request for construction of godown may be considered qua the plot bearing khasra No. 1003 but same was rejected by Field Verification Committee, solely for the reasons that khasra No.1003 is not owned by the petitioner or any family members of the =family unit' as provided in the multiple dealership/distributorship norm. 15. Clause 4 (g) of the brochure, as has been reproduced hereinabove, clearly provides that applicant should own a suitable plot of minimum 20x24 in dimension for construction of LPG Cylinder storage/ godown. It further provides that own means having clear ownership title of the property in the name of the applicant/ family member of the =Family Unit' as defined in multiple dealership/distributorship norm. It further provides that own means having clear ownership title of the property in the name of the applicant/ family member of the =Family Unit' as defined in multiple dealership/distributorship norm. It further provides that in case ownership/ co-ownership by the family member, consent letter from the family member would be required. Similarly, in clause-4, multiple dealership/distributorship and family unit have been defined, wherein it has been provided that multiple dealership norms means that the applicant or other family of the =family unit'. 16. Since, it is an admitted case of the petitioner herself that Sh. Jalam Singh, in no manner, was related to her, this Court sees no illegality in the order passed by the Corporation, wherein offer given by the petitioner to construct the godown on khasra No.1003, was rejected on the ground that the same was not found owned by the applicant or by any member of =Family Unit' as given multiple dealership/distributorship norm. As far as, khasra No.994, which was offered by the present petitioner as a first choice in her application (Annexure P-1), is concerned, corporation vide communication dated 28.10.2011 stated that khasra No.994 was not found suitable for the construction of godown since the same is not approachable and it is covered on all sides by the land owned by others. 17. Since, vide order dated 4.1.2013, this Court had specifically asked the Commission to submit its report ?whether any link road exist to the plot of the petitioner bearing khasra No.994 situated in Mohal Parwara, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, H.P? and the Commission, after visiting the spot specifically reported that there exit PWD main road MDR Kandha Pandoh road from which Km. 6/200 there is link road namely Kelodhar Parwara having length 7/265 upto Majhol village. Similarly, Commission while answering question No.2 formulated by this Court in its order dated 4.1.2013, reported that road is fair weather motorable road and HRTC bus is regularly plying on this road. The Commission further while answering questions No.3 and 4 framed by the Court in its order dated 4.1.2012 has categorically reported that from the PWD link road Majhol at Km 7/265 there is a link road constructed by the Block Department having length 230 meter upto Primary School Majhol and 50 meter upto khasra No.994 Muhal Parwara. The Commission further while answering questions No.3 and 4 framed by the Court in its order dated 4.1.2012 has categorically reported that from the PWD link road Majhol at Km 7/265 there is a link road constructed by the Block Department having length 230 meter upto Primary School Majhol and 50 meter upto khasra No.994 Muhal Parwara. The Commissioner further reported that link road is fair weather motorable road and only light transport vehicle can ply up to the petitioner plot comprised in khasra No.994 situated in muhal Parwara. 18. But, careful perusal of the aforesaid report, clearly suggests that from PWD link road there is link road constructed by the Block department having length 230 meter upto primary School Majhol and 50 meter upto khara No.994 muhal Parwara, which clearly suggests that khasra No.994 is abutted to the road and L.T.V. plies on the road. The Commissioner while stating that road is fair weather motorable road has specifically stated that HRTC bus regularly plies on this road. Though, Commission has stated that only Light Motor Vehicle can ply upto petitioner plot comprising khasra No.994 situated in muhal Parwara, but it clearly emerge from the report that till Primary School, Majhol, which is 50 meter away from khara No.994 of muhal Parwara, there is a link road constructed by Block department having length 230 meter, on which HRTC bus regularly plies. 19. This Court, after perusing the report submitted by the Commission appointed by this Court has all reasons to agree with the contention put forth on behalf of the petitioner's counsel that the impugned order dated 28.10.2011 is contrary to the factual position which exists on the spot. Since the commission has categorically stated that road leads upto khasra No.994 i.e. plot owned by the present petitioner and there is all fair weather motorable road, this Court sees no force in the contention put forth on behalf of the learned counsel representing the respondent-corporation that the plot of land i.e. khasra No.994 is not suitable and cannot be considered for LPG distributorship, rather this Court, after perusing the report submitted by the Commission, is of the view that land/plot bearing khasra No.994, as offered by the petitioner is suitable for construction of godown for LPG distributorship in terms of the condition contained in brochure Annexure P-2. It is undisputed that plot of khasra No.994 is of minimum 20x24 meter in dimension. Similarly, after perusing the record, this Court is fully satisfied that the same is abutted to the road, which is freely accessible through all weather motorable approach road. The Commission has categorically reported that on the road, HRTC bus plies till Primary School from where petitioner plot is hardly a distance of 50 meters to which also road has been constructed. As per the commission report, Light Motor Vehicle can go up to the plot of the petitioner bearing khasra No.994. Since, only condition contained in the brochure is that road should be freely accessible through all weather motorable approach road, application furnished by the petitioner Jayoti Thakur could not be rejected by respondent-corporation on the ground that khasra No.994 is not suitable for construction of godown. Accordingly, this Court after perusing the report submitted by the Commission pursuant to the directions passed by this Court on 4.1.2013 is fully satisfied that khasra No.994 is suitable for construction of godown and same is all weather motorable approachable road as required under brochure. 20. In the present case, respondent being instrumentalities of the State was expected to act fairly without there being any bias and mala-fide, especially when it deals with public establishments or issuance of any grant of licence etc. In this regard the Hon'ble Apex Court in City Industrial Development Corporation through its Managing Director vs. Platinum Entertainment and Others, (2015)1 SCC 558 , held:- ?37. It is well settled that whenever the Government dealt with the public establishment in entering into a contract or issuance of licence, the Government could not act arbitrarily on its sweet will but must act in accordance with law and the action of the Government should not give the smack of arbitrariness. In the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India & Ors., (1979) 3 SCC 489 , this Court observed as under: (SCC pp.504 & 506 paras 11 &12)- ?11. Today the Government in a welfare State, is the regulator and dispenser of special services and provider of a large number of benefits, including jobs, contracts, licences, quotas, mineral rights, etc. The Government pours forth wealth, money, benefits, services, contracts, quotas and licences. The valuables dispensed by Government take many forms, but they all share one characteristic. Today the Government in a welfare State, is the regulator and dispenser of special services and provider of a large number of benefits, including jobs, contracts, licences, quotas, mineral rights, etc. The Government pours forth wealth, money, benefits, services, contracts, quotas and licences. The valuables dispensed by Government take many forms, but they all share one characteristic. They are steadily taking the place of traditional forms of wealth. These valuables which derive from relationships to Government are of many kinds. They comprise social security benefits, cash grants for political sufferers and the whole scheme of State and local welfare. Then again, thousands of people are employed in the State and the Central Governments and local authorities. Licences are required before one can engage in many kinds of businesses or work. The power of giving licences means power to withhold them and this gives control to the Government or to the agents of Government on the lives of many people. Many individuals and many more businesses enjoy largesse in the form of Government contracts. These contracts often resemble subsidies. It is virtually impossible to lose money on them and many enterprises are set up primarily to do business with Government. Government owns and controls hundreds of acres of public land valuable for mining and other purposes. These resources are available for utilization by private corporations and individuals by way of lease or licence. All these mean growth in the Government largesse and with the increasing magnitude and range of governmental functions as we move closer to a welfare State, more and more of our wealth consists of these new forms. Some of these forms of wealth may be in the nature of legal rights but the large majority of them are in the nature of privileges. But on that account, can it be said that they do not enjoy any legal protection? Can they be regarded as gratuity furnished by the State so that the State may withhold, grant or revoke it at its pleasure?? ?12. But on that account, can it be said that they do not enjoy any legal protection? Can they be regarded as gratuity furnished by the State so that the State may withhold, grant or revoke it at its pleasure?? ?12. ………..It must, therefore, be taken to be the law that where the Government is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or issuing quotas or licences or granting other forms of largesse, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and, like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity with standard or norms which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The power or discretion of the Government in the matter of grant of largesse including award of jobs, contracts, quotas, licences, etc. must be confined and structured by rational, relevant and nondiscriminatory standard or norm and if the Government departs from such standard or norm in any particular case or cases, the action of the Government would be liable to be struck down, unless it can be shown by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle which in itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory.? 39. In Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy & Ors. vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Anr., (1980) 4 SCC 1 , this Court observed as under: (SCC pp.13-14, paras 14-15). ?14. Where any governmental action fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness and public interest discussed above and is found to be wanting in the quality of reasonableness or lacking in the element of public interest, it would be liable to be struck down as invalid. It must follow as a necessary corollary from this proposition that the Government cannot act in a manner which would benefit a private party at the cost of the State; such an action would be both unreasonable and contrary to public interest. The Government, therefore, cannot, for example, give a contract or sell or lease out its property for a consideration less than the highest that can be obtained for it, unless of course there are other considerations which render it reasonable and in public interest to do so. The Government, therefore, cannot, for example, give a contract or sell or lease out its property for a consideration less than the highest that can be obtained for it, unless of course there are other considerations which render it reasonable and in public interest to do so. Such considerations may be that some directive principle is sought to be advanced or implemented or that the contract or the property is given not with a view to earning revenue but for the purpose of carrying out a welfare scheme for the benefit of a particular group or section of people deserving it or that the person who has offered a higher consideration is not otherwise fit to be given the contract or the property. We have referred to these considerations only illustratively, for there may be an infinite variety of considerations which may have to be taken into account by the Government in formulating its policies and it is on a total evaluation of various considerations which have weighed with the Government in taking a particular action, that the court would have to decide whether the action of the Government is reasonable and in public interest. But one basic principle which must guide the court in arriving at its determination on this question is that there is always a presumption that the governmental action is reasonable and in public interest and it is for the party challenging its validity to show that it is wanting in reasonableness or is not informed with public interest. This burden is a heavy one and it has to be discharged to the satisfaction of the court by proper and adequate material. The court cannot lightly assume that the action taken by the Government is unreasonable or without public interest because, as we said above, there are a large number of policy considerations which must necessarily weigh with the Government in taking action and therefore the court would not strike down governmental action as invalid on this ground, unless it is clearly satisfied that the action is unreasonable or not in public interest. But where it is so satisfied, it would be the plainest duty of the court under the Constitution to invalidate the governmental action. This is one of the most important functions of the court and also one of the most essential for preservation of the rule of law. But where it is so satisfied, it would be the plainest duty of the court under the Constitution to invalidate the governmental action. This is one of the most important functions of the court and also one of the most essential for preservation of the rule of law. It is imperative in a democracy governed by the rule of law that governmental action must be kept within the limits of the law and if there is any transgression, the court must be ready to condemn it. It is a matter of historical experience that there is a tendency in every Government to assume more and more powers and since it is not an uncommon phenomenon in some countries that the legislative check is getting diluted, it is left to the court as the only other reviewing authority under the Constitution to be increasingly vigilant to ensure observance with the rule of law and in this task, the court must not flinch or falter. It may be pointed out that this ground of invalidity, namely, that the governmental action is unreasonable or [pic]lacking in the quality of public interest, is different from that of mala fides though it may, in a given case, furnish evidence of mala fides. 15. The second limitation on the discretion of the Government in grant of largess is in regard to the persons to whom such largess may be granted. It is now well settled as a result of the decision of this Court in Ramana D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India that the Government is not free, like an ordinary individual, in selecting the recipients for its largess and it cannot choose to deal with any person it pleases in its absolute and unfettered discretion. The law is now well established that the Government need not deal with anyone, but if it does so, it must do so fairly without discrimination and without unfair procedure. Where the Government is dealing with the public whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or granting other forms of largess, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and, like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity with some standard or norm which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The governmental action must not be arbitrary or capricious, but must be based on some principle which meets the test of reason and relevance. This rule was enunciated by the court as a rule of administrative law and it was also validated by the court as an emanation flowing directly from the doctrine of equality embodied in Article 14. The court referred to the activist magnitude of Article 14 as evolved in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and Maneka Gandhi case, (1978) 1 SCC 248 and observed that it must follow as a necessary corollary from the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 that though the State is entitled to refuse to enter into relationship with anyone, yet if it does so, it cannot arbitrarily choose any person it likes for entering into such relationship and discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced, but it must act in conformity with some standard or principle which meets that test of reasonableness and non- discrimination and any departure from such standard or principle would be invalid unless it can be supported or justified on some rational and nondiscriminatory ground'. (Ramana Dayaram Shetty case, SCC p.512.para 21) This decision has reaffirmed the principle of reasonableness and non arbitrariness in governmental action which lies at the core of our entire constitutional scheme and structure.? (pp.576-580) 21. In B.A. Linga Reddy and Others vs. Karnataka State Transport Authority and Others, (2015)4 SCC 515 , the Court held: ?16. The pari materia provisions contained in sections 99 and 102 of the Act of 1988 are reproduced hereunder: "99. (pp.576-580) 21. In B.A. Linga Reddy and Others vs. Karnataka State Transport Authority and Others, (2015)4 SCC 515 , the Court held: ?16. The pari materia provisions contained in sections 99 and 102 of the Act of 1988 are reproduced hereunder: "99. Preparation and publication of proposal regarding road transport service of a State transport undertaking.-[ (1)] Where any State Government is of opinion that for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport service, it is necessary in the public interest that road transport services in general or any particular class of such service in relation to any area or route or portion thereof should be run and operated by the State transport undertaking, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons or otherwise, the State Government may formulate a proposal regarding a scheme giving particulars of the nature of the services proposed to be rendered, the area or route proposed to be covered and other relevant particulars respecting thereto and shall publish such proposal in the Official Gazette of the State formulating such proposal and in not less than one newspaper in the regional language circulating in the area or route proposed to be covered by such scheme and also in such other manner as the State Government formulating such proposal deem fit. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), when a proposal is published under that subsection, then from the date of publication of such proposal, no permit shall be granted to any person, except a temporary permit during the pendency of the proposal and such temporary permit shall be valid only for a period of one year from the date of its issue or till the date of final publication of the scheme under section 100, whichever is earlier. 102. Cancellation or modification of scheme.- (1) The State Government may, at any time, if it considers necessary, in the public interest so to do, modify any approved scheme after giving- (i) the State transport undertaking; and (ii) any other person who, in the opinion of the State Government, is likely to be affected by the proposed modification, an opportunity of being heard in respect of the proposed modification. (ii) The State Government shall publish any modification proposed under subsection (1) in the Official Gazette and in one of the newspapers in the regional languages circulating in the area in which it is proposed to be covered by such modification, together with the date, not being less than thirty days from such publication in the Official Gazette, and the time and place at which any representation received in this behalf will be heard by the State Government." 17. It is apparent from the provisions that the scheme is framed for providing efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated road transport service in public interest. Section 102 of the Act of 1988 does not lay down the requirement of recording any express finding on any particular aspect; whereas the duty is to hear and consider the objections. It requires the State Government to act in public interest to cancel or modify a scheme after giving the State transport Undertaking or any other affected person by the proposed modification an opportunity of hearing. The State is supposed to be acting in public interest while exercising the power under the provision. However, that does not dispense with the requirement to record reasons while dealing with objections. Modification of the scheme is a quasi-judicial function while modifying or cancelling a scheme. The State Government is duty-bound to consider the objections and to give reasons either to accept or reject them. The rule of reason is anti-thesis to arbitrariness in action and is a necessary concomitant of the principles of natural justice. 18. In Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of India,[ 1976 (2) SCC 981 , it was held : (SCC pp. 986-87, para 6) "6. …..It is now settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial function, it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons. That has been laid down by a long line of decisions of this Court ending with N.M. Desai v. Testeels Ltd.. But, unfortunately, the Assistant Collector did not choose to give any reasons in support of the order made by him confirming the demand for differential duty. This was in plain disregard of the requirement of law. The Collector in revision did give some sort of reason but it was hardly satisfactory. But, unfortunately, the Assistant Collector did not choose to give any reasons in support of the order made by him confirming the demand for differential duty. This was in plain disregard of the requirement of law. The Collector in revision did give some sort of reason but it was hardly satisfactory. He did not deal in his order with the arguments advanced by the appellants in their representation dated December 8, 1961 which were repeated in the subsequent representation dated June 4, 1965. It is not suggested that the Collector should have made an elaborate order discussing the arguments of the appellants in the manner of a Court of law. But the order of the Collector could have been a little more explicit and articulate so as to lend assurance that the case of the appellants had been properly considered by him. If courts of law are to be replaced by administrative authorities and tribunals, as indeed, in some kinds of cases, [pic]with the proliferation of Administrative Law, they may have to be so replaced, it is essential that administrative authorities and tribunals should accord fair and proper hearing to the persons sought to be affected by their orders and give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons in support of the orders made by them. Then alone administrative authorities and tribunals exercising quasi- judicial function will be able to justify their existence and carry credibility with the people by inspiring confidence in the adjudicatory process. The rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is, like the principle of audi alteram partem, a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi-judicial process and this rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law." 19. This Court in Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank's case while relying upon S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, 1990 (4) SCC 594 case, SCCp.243, para 8): "8. The purpose of disclosure of reasons, as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India ( 1990 (4) SCC 594 ), is that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasi-judicial authorities. Unless reasons are disclosed, how can a person know whether the authority has applied its mind or not? Also, giving of reasons minimises the chances of arbitrariness. Unless reasons are disclosed, how can a person know whether the authority has applied its mind or not? Also, giving of reasons minimises the chances of arbitrariness. Hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law that some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in a judicial or quasi-judicial order, even if it is an order of affirmation." 20. A Constitution Bench of this Court has laid down in Krishna Swami v. Union of India & Ors. [ 1992 (4) SCC 605 ] that if a statutory or public authority/ functionary does not record the reasons, its decision would be rendered arbitrary, unfair, unjust and violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. This Court has laid down: (SCC p.637, para 47) "47 …..Undoubtedly, in a parliamentary democracy governed by rule of law, any action, decision or order of any statutory/public authority/functionary must be founded upon reasons stated in the order or staring from the record. Reasons are the links between the material, the foundation for their erection and the actual conclusions. They would also demonstrate how the mind of the maker was activated and actuated and their rational nexus and synthesis with the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Lest it would be arbitrary, unfair and unjust, violating Article 14 or unfair procedure offending Article 21. But exceptions are envisaged keeping institutional pragmatism into play, conscious as we are of each other's limitations. 21. In Workmen of Meenakshi Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. Meenakshi Mills Ltd. & Anr. [ 1992 (3) SCC 336 ] while considering the principles of natural justice, it has been observed that it is the duty to give reasons and to pass a speaking order; that excludes arbitrariness in action as the same is necessary to exclude arbitrariness. This Court has observed thus : (SCC pp.374 & 378, paras 42 & 49) "42. We have already dealt with the nature of the power that is exercised by the appropriate Government or the authority while refusing or granting permission under sub-section (2) and have found that the said power is not purely administrative in character but partakes of exercise of a function which is judicial in nature. The exercise of the said power envisages passing of a peaking order on an objective consideration of relevant facts after affording an opportunity to the concerned parties. The exercise of the said power envisages passing of a peaking order on an objective consideration of relevant facts after affording an opportunity to the concerned parties. Principles or guidelines are insisted on with a view to control the exercise of discretion conferred by the statute. There is need for such principles or guidelines when the discretionary power is purely administrative in character to be exercised on the subjective opinion of the authority. The same is, however, not true when the power is required to be exercised on objective considerations by a speaking order after affording the parties an opportunity to put forward their respective points of view. 49. We are also unable to agree with the submission that the requirement of passing a speaking order containing reasons as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 25-N does not provide sufficient safeguard against arbitrary action. In S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, 1990 (4) SCC 594 , it has been held that irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review, the recording of reasons by an administrative authority by itself serves a salutary purpose, viz., "it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision making." (SCC p.612, para 36)? (pp.528-530) 22. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law referred hereinabove, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the action of the respondent corporation in not allotting 'RGGLV' in favour of the petitioner is unjust, discriminatory and incomplete violation of principle of natural justice and as such, same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 23. Admittedly, in the present case petitioner had applied for =RGGLV' pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent-corporation and he was selected for draw of lots since she had acquired minimum marks. Perusal of the report of Commission, as has been discussed in detailed hereinabove, clearly suggests that land/plot offered by the petitioner is suitable for construction of godown. 24. Hence, the present petition is allowed and order dated 28.10.2011 (Annexure P-5) is quashed and set-aside. The respondent-Corporation is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for allotment of =RGGLV' at Parwara, District Mandi, HP on khasra No.994, as mentioned in the application filed by her pursuant to advertisement (Annexure P-1) within a period of four weeks from the date of this judgment. The respondent-Corporation is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for allotment of =RGGLV' at Parwara, District Mandi, HP on khasra No.994, as mentioned in the application filed by her pursuant to advertisement (Annexure P-1) within a period of four weeks from the date of this judgment. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of alongwith pending application (s), if any.