ORDER : The petitioner is before this Court assailing the endorsement dated 27.02.2015 at Annexure ‘G’ to the petition. In that light the petitioner is seeking issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to allot the LPG distribution agency in favour of the petitioner under the Rajiv Gandhi Rural LPG Distribution Scheme at Kanamangala village, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. 2. The respondents had notified seeking applications for appointing the LPG agents under the scheme. The petitioner having applied had furnished the details relating to the property in Sy. No.65 as at Annexure ‘E’ to the petition. The residential certificate at Annexure ‘D’ had also been produced. The respondents on having taken note of the application, while verifying the details had noticed that the land which had been offered by the petitioner for the purpose of locating the godown was in the name of her father-in-law which did not satisfy the requirements of the regulations. Further the residential certificate produced was also not as per the requirement. In that view, through the endorsement/ communication dated 27.02.2015 (Annexure ‘G’) the respondents had rejected the candidature of the petitioner. It is in that light the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The respondents having appeared have filed the objection statement. In order to sustain the reasons as indicated in the impugned endorsement/communication, reference is made to the definition of the ‘Family unit’ as contained therein which reads as hereunder: “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. 4. A perusal of the same would indicate that the property standing in the name of the father-in-law of the petitioner cannot be considered as belonging to the ‘Family unit’ as per their relationship. It is in that light the respondents have arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner does not satisfy the requirement. 5. 4. A perusal of the same would indicate that the property standing in the name of the father-in-law of the petitioner cannot be considered as belonging to the ‘Family unit’ as per their relationship. It is in that light the respondents have arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner does not satisfy the requirement. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner no doubt would contend that such definition as has been assigned to a ‘Family unit’ by the respondent Corporation would not be justified as the respondent – Corporation as a Public Sector Undertaking cannot alter the definition of the ‘Family’ and when the petitioner is able to indicate that she would have the benefit of the property which stands in the name of the father-in-law, the same should have been considered. 6. However, such contention cannot be considered by this Court at this point for more than one reason. Firstly the requirement as contained in the Regulation is not assailed in the instant petition. That apart the petitioner being aware of the regulations and the conditions which are indicated in the notification, having participated in the process, cannot at present raise such contentions so as to approbate and reprobate. Therefore, when the property as offered by the petitioner is not in accordance with the regulations, the respondents were justified in their action. That apart the Residential Certificate also is not in the nature as it was required as on the date of the application. Therefore, this Court at this juncture cannot come to a conclusion that the communication/endorsement issued to the petitioner is contrary to law. Hence, the same does not call for interference. However, it is made clear that when the respondents re-notify the same location there would be no bar for the petitioner to respond to the same, if the petitioner rectifies the said defects and even in respect of the same property if any other additional documents are produced to indicate a better right over the property, the same shall be taken note by the respondents and consideration shall be made without treating the present rejection as a bar for such consideration. The petition is accordingly disposed of.