JUDGMENT : Arijit Banerjee, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8 December, 2015 passed by the Ld. Single Judge whereby the writ petition of the respondent no. 1 before us being WP No. 7302(W) of 2015 was allowed and the order of rejection of the writ petitioner's application for candidature for dealership of the appellant's products was set aside. 2. The appellant published an advertisement in a Bengali Daily on 21 January, 2014 inviting interested parties to offer their candidature for appointment of dealers under the Rajiv Gandhi LPG Vitrak Scheme by the appellant, the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 3. One of the conditions of eligibility was that the applicant must have a closing balance of Rs. 4 lacs in a savings a/c. of a Bank/Post Office on the last date for submission of applications specified in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any). The application was required to be made in standard format, the note to Serial No. 10 whereof read as follows:- ‘The amount declared above in each case must be available as closing balance on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any) and the same would be verified during Field Verification’. 4. The last date for submission of applications was 24 February, 2014 by 5 p.m. 5. The respondent No. 1/writ petitioner submitted his application in standard format on 19 February, 2014. Against Serial No. 10 of the standard format, he disclosed that he maintained a savings a/c with the United Bank of India and the closing balance was Rs. 4,20,000/-. 6. On 20 February, 2015 the respondent no. 2 before us submitted his application. 7. On 23 February, 2014 a corrigendum was published extending the last date for submission of application to 24 March, 2014. 8. In all five applications were received, out of which three were received prior to publication of the corrigendum and two were received after publication of the corrigendum. Both the respondent no. 1/writ petitioner and the respondent no. 2 applied before publication of the corrigendum. 9. Three out of the five applications were rejected at the scrutiny stage. The respondent no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 were found eligible to participate in a draw selection as per Clause 13.4 of the Rajiv Gandhi LPG Vitrak Scheme. The respondent no. 1/writ petitioner and the respondent no. 2 applied before publication of the corrigendum. 9. Three out of the five applications were rejected at the scrutiny stage. The respondent no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 were found eligible to participate in a draw selection as per Clause 13.4 of the Rajiv Gandhi LPG Vitrak Scheme. The respondent no. 1/writ petitioner was successful in the draw and came to be selected. However, in course of field verification on 7 March, 2015 it transpired that on 24 March, 2014 i.e. the last date for submission of application as per corrigendum, the respondent no. 1 had a closing balance of Rs. 4481/- instead of Rs. 4 lacs. Accordingly, by an order dated 12 March, 2015 issued by the Senior Regional Manager of the appellant company, the candidature of the respondent no. 1 was rejected. 10. Since the respondent No. 2 was the sole eligible candidate, after Field Verification, the appellant issued the Letter of Intent in his favour. 11. The respondent No. 1 challenged the said order dated 12 March, 2015 by filing WP No. 7302(W) of 2015. 12. Before the Ld. Judge it was argued on behalf of the writ petitioner/respondent no. 1 that he having submitted his application on 19 February, 2014 i.e. prior to the issuance of the corrigendum, he was required to maintain a minimum bank balance of Rs. 4 lacs on 24 February, 2014 being the original last date for submission of application. According to him, the extended date for submission of application did not apply to him and there was no obligation on him to maintain a bank balance of Rs. 4 lacs as on 24 March, 2014. It was contended on his behalf that the word ‘or’ appearing in the clause requiring the maintenance of bank balance of Rs. 4 lacs on the last date for submission of applications, is disjunctive and is used to connect words, phrases, clauses etc. representing the alternatives. According to him, he having satisfied the criterion of maintaining a bank balance of Rs. 4 lacs on 24 February, 2014, it was not necessary for him to maintain such a bank balance on 24 March, 2014. It was urged on his behalf that the position would have been different if in the place and stead of the word ‘or’, the word ‘and’ was used. 4 lacs on 24 February, 2014, it was not necessary for him to maintain such a bank balance on 24 March, 2014. It was urged on his behalf that the position would have been different if in the place and stead of the word ‘or’, the word ‘and’ was used. In that event, he would have been under an obligation to maintain the minimum bank balance on 24 February, 2014 as well as on 24 March, 2014. 13. The Ld. Judge held that an applicant who submits his application together with all the particulars/documents required by the scheme would not ordinarily be concerned with any corrigendum that the authority may issue in future. Should there be no change in the conditions of eligibility, such applicant is not obliged in law to rummage through newspapers daily to find out whether any change is invited or not. On the contrary, he is entitled to expect consideration of his application in accordance with law. The word ‘or’ is intended to provide an alternative to those applicants who seek to apply within the time extended by the corrigendum to have Rs. 4 lacs as closing balance on the last date for submission of applications as specified in the corrigendum. In short, the Ld. Judge held that the writ petitioner was not under any obligation to maintain a closing balance of Rs. 4 lacs on 24 March, 2014 being the extended last date for submission of applications as per the corrigendum. The Ld. Judge set aside the order dated 12 March, 2015 and directed the appellant company to treat the writ petitioner's application to be ‘in order’ if Rs. 4 lacs were available in his bank account on 24 February, 2014. It was further directed in the event of the writ petitioner satisfying all the conditions of eligibility, the appellant company would proceed in accordance with law to finalize the process of appointment. 14. Being aggrieved, the appellants are before us by way of the present appeal. 15. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have considered the papers on record. The eligibility clause from which the entire controversy arises reads as follows:- “The amount declared above in each case must be available as closing balance on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any) and the same would be verified during Field Verification.” 16. The eligibility clause from which the entire controversy arises reads as follows:- “The amount declared above in each case must be available as closing balance on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any) and the same would be verified during Field Verification.” 16. It is the correct construction of the abovementioned clause on which the result of this appeal will depend. 17. To interpret the said clause correctly we should bear in mind the object and purpose of the said clause. To our mind, the object of the clause is to test the financial solvency and commercial credibility of the applicant. The clause requires the applicant to maintain the minimum closing balance of Rs. 4 lacs on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any). In our opinion, the pre-dominant obligation that the said clause imposed on an applicant was to maintain a minimum closing balance of Rs. 4 lacs on the last date for submission of application. Although the advertisement stipulated 24 February, 2014 as the last date for submission of application, the said clause put all prospective applicants on notice that there was the possibility of issuance of a corrigendum extending the last date for submission of application. It was expected that all the applicants would be alert and diligent and on the look out for any such corrigendum at least till 24 February, 2014 which was the last date for submission of applications as specified in the advertisement. It cannot be said that just because an interested party submitted his application on 19 February, 2014, he could go to sleep unconcerned with any corrigendum that could be published extending the last date for submission of application. To this extent, we disagree with the reasoning of the Ld. Single Judge. 18. The said clause itself contemplated issuance of a corrigendum extending the last date for submission of application. Such corrigendum was, in fact, issued prior to the last date for submission of application as originally specified. Once such corrigendum was published, the last date for submission of application stood extended till 24 March, 2014. There cannot be two last dates for submission of application. Such corrigendum was, in fact, issued prior to the last date for submission of application as originally specified. Once such corrigendum was published, the last date for submission of application stood extended till 24 March, 2014. There cannot be two last dates for submission of application. Consequent upon issuance of the corrigendum, the last date for submission of application for all concerned including those who had submitted their applications prior to the issuance of the corrigendum, became 24 March, 2014. Hence, in our opinion, all applicants, whether they submitted their applications prior to the issuance of the corrigendum or subsequent thereto, were under an obligation to maintain a minimum closing balance of Rs. 4 lacs on 24 March, 2014. 19. It is true that the word ‘or’ is ordinarily used in a disjunctive sense. It normally means one of two or more alternatives. However, the true meaning of a word must be ascertained with reference to the context in which it is used. Just to give an example, it is well-settled that the word ‘may’ which is discretionary in nature can mean ‘shall’ which is mandatory in nature depending on the context in which the word is used. This is not to say that in the present case in the said clause, the word ‘may’ should be construed as ‘and’. It is not that upon issuance of the corrigendum, the applicants who had applied prior to issuance of the corrigendum on the basis that 24 February, 2014 was the last date for submission of application, became obliged to maintain the minimum closing balance on 24 February, 2014 as well on 24 March, 2014. Rather, the obligation to maintain minimum closing balance on 24 February, 2014 was replaced and substituted by the obligation to maintain minimum closing balance on 24 March, 2014. Thus, for the purpose of maintaining of minimum closing balance, 24 February, 2014 became irrelevant. In our opinion, the said clause should be read as meaning that the minimum closing balance of Rs. 4 lacs should be available as on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement or, if any corrigendum is published, then on the last date for submission of application as specified in the corrigendum. The predominant emphasis is on the last date for submission of the application, i.e., 24th March, 2014. 4 lacs should be available as on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement or, if any corrigendum is published, then on the last date for submission of application as specified in the corrigendum. The predominant emphasis is on the last date for submission of the application, i.e., 24th March, 2014. This, in our view, is the natural and correct interpretation of the said clause. 20. In view of the aforesaid this appeal succeeds. The judgment and order under appeal is set aside. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 21. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities. 22. Later: After pronouncement of the Judgment and order, Mr. Tanmoy Chowdhury, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1, prays for stay of operation of this judgment and order for a period of four weeks. 23. We have considered the prayer as aforesaid and the same is hereby rejected. Manjula Chellur, C.J. : I agree.