JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. 1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 28.7.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court whereby he has dismissed appellant’s WP(C) No.7021/2013. 2. On 21.2.2013, the Indian Oil Corporation Limited ( in short “IOC”) published an advertisement for selection of Dealer at Barnaddi, District Nalbari under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin L.P.G. Vitarak (RGGLV) Scheme. The prescribed eligibility criteria required that the applicant should be a resident of the District of the advertised location and he must possess adequate land for the construction of Godown to store LPG Cylinders. Also the selection was to be done by draw of lot out of all eligible applicants. 3. In all 3 applicants, including the appellant and respondent No.5, applied for the Dealership at Barnaddi along with the required documents. The IOC after examining their applications found them to be eligible candidates. No complaint whatsoever was made by the appellant against the eligibility of Respondent No.5. On 23.8.2013, in a draw of lot, out of all 3 eligible applicants, Respondent No.5 was selected for Dealership. The appellant then made a complaint dated 30.8.2013 questioning the eligibility of Respondent No.5 on the ground that he was not a resident of Nalbari District. The complaint was examined by the IOC in accordance with the Grievance/Complaint Redressal System and it was rejected because the ground taken therein was not found to be correct. The IOC thereafter carried out the field verification for Respondent No.5 as per the laid down procedure and found that the information submitted by him was correct in all respect. The IOC, therefore, issued Letter of Intent in his favour on 28.10.2013. 4. Aggrieved, the appellant filed WP(C) No.7021/2013 for declaration that Respondent No.5 is not a resident of District Nalbari and the IOC be directed to cancel his candidature. The appellant also prayed for a direction against the IOC to hold re-draw for selection amongst remaining two eligible applicants. The learned Single Judge however disagreed with the appellant and dismissed his petition by the impugned order. It is in this background, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find no merit in the appeal. As mentioned above, the appellant did not make any complaint against the eligibility of Respondent No.5 till his selection was made. It is in this background, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find no merit in the appeal. As mentioned above, the appellant did not make any complaint against the eligibility of Respondent No.5 till his selection was made. It was only when by luck Respondent No.5 was selected for the Dealership in a draw of lot, the appellant chose to make a complaint alleging that he is not a resident of District Nalbari. Even then, the complaint was examined by the IOC as per the prescribed Grievance/Complaint Redressal System and since the ground taken therein was found to be incorrect, the complaint was closed. Besides this, Respondent No.5 did submit certificates dated 16.9.2013 and 17.9.2013 of the Circle Officer and Mouzadar respectively declaring that he is a resident of District Nalbari. These certificates were also filed by the IOC and respondent No.5 but their validity was not challenged by the appellant in the writ petition. And, as mentioned above, in the field verification by the IOC, respondent No.5 has been found to be a resident of District Nalbari. It is true that appellant has filed a Sale Deed wherein respondent No.5 has shown his address of District Baksa, but for this reason alone, it cannot be held in a writ jurisdiction that he is not a resident of District Nalbari. The appellant has not alleged any malice or bias against the IOC for selecting respondent No.5. The IOC also after having thoroughly examining the papers of Respondent No.5 as well as the complaint of appellant has found respondent No.5 to be a resident of District Nalbari. Hence, we find no good ground to interfere with the selection of respondent No.5 as Dealer at Barnaddi, District Nalbari under RGGLV Scheme. We accordingly affirm the selection of respondent No.5 as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant’s writ petition. 6. The appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs.2000/- payable to Respondent No.5 within 2 (two) months from today.