JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the letter dated 22.11.2011 passed by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short 'the HPCL' hereinafter), whereby it has cancelled the candidature and empanelment of the petitioner for LPG Distributorship at location Balesar Satta, Jodhpur and withdrawal of letter of intent dated 05.05.2011. 2. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the respondent - HPCL issued advertisements for award of LPG Distributorship at various locations including Balesar Satta under Rajeev Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak Scheme. The petitioner applied for location of village Balesar Satta, District Jodhpur. On 04.03.2011, the petitioner was declared successful for awarding LPG Distributorship for the above mentioned location. On 13.04.2011, the HPCL informed the petitioner that a complaint has been received from one Smt. Santosh Chhangani alleging that the land offered by him for godown/showroom falling in Khasra No. 2170 is not a part of village Balesar Satta but is a part of village Shaheed Pehep Singh Nagar. In the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, it is mentioned that the HPCL sought clarification from Sub-Tehsildar and as per the said clarification, village Shaheed Pehep Singh Nagar is declared as new revenue village vide notification dated 24.09.2008 and the land offered by the petitioner for godown/showroom is falling in that village and not in village Balesar Satta. 3. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice claiming that Khasra No. 2170 is a part of Balesar Satta and in support of it, he submitted relevant Jamabandi. Upon receiving the reply from the petitioner, the HPCL issued letter of intent in favour of the petitioner on 05.05.2011. The process of change of land use proposed for godown/showroom was completed and a no objection certificate has also been issued by the Gram Panchayat, Balesar Satta. 4. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has constructed a godown and showroom on the location offered by him and Chief Controller of Explosives, Government of India has also issued necessary licence in his favour for storage of 5000 Kgs. of LPG in cylinders on 10.08.2011. 5. 4. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has constructed a godown and showroom on the location offered by him and Chief Controller of Explosives, Government of India has also issued necessary licence in his favour for storage of 5000 Kgs. of LPG in cylinders on 10.08.2011. 5. On 07.09.2011, the respondent - HPCL again issued a show cause notice to the petitioner claiming that the land of Khasra No. 2170 offered by him is not situated in village Balesar Satta and is situated in village Sahheed Pehep Singh Nagar and, therefore, it is explicitly clear that site offered by the petitioner is pertaining to another village and not of the advertised location and as such the petitioner is not having essential requirement for appointment as RGGLV Dealer. 6. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice on 16.09.2011 and also appeared before the competent authority of the respondent - HPCL for personal hearing. However, the respondent - HPCL passed the impugned order and cancelled the candidature and empanelment of the petitioner as LPG Distributor for location Balesar Satta and also withdrew the letter of intent dated 05.05.2011. Hence, this petition. 7. Reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondent - HPCL, wherein it is stated that as per the information received from Nayab Tehsildar, Balesar, Khasra No. 2170 is falling in the new revenue village Shaheed Pehep Singh Nagar, which was notified on 23.03.2008 and as such the land offered by the petitioner for godown/showroom is not falling in the advertised location i.e. Balesar Satta and, therefore, there is no illegality in issuance of the impugned order. 8. Learned counsels for the parties have advanced their arguments as per the pleadings raised in the writ petition, reply and the rejoinder. 9. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the material available on record. 10. It is not in dispute that as per the existing revenue record, on 21.11.2011, the land of Khasra No. 2170 was falling in village Balesar Satta, though notification regarding the creation of new revenue village Shaheed Pehep Singh Nagar was issued on 24.09.2008 but the land of Khasra No. 2170 was not shown as the land of newly created village up to 21.11.2011 and the same was shown as land of village Balesar Satta. It is relevant to quote the information given by Nayab Tehsildar to the HPCL vide letter dated 07.04.2011. The letter dated 07.04.20111 reads as under: dk;kZy; mi rglhynkj ckyslj dzekad@Hkq0vk0@143 fnuakd 07-04-2011 izsf"kr&fgUnqLrku isV~ksfy;e dksisZjs'ku fyfeVsM+ fo"k; & jktho xkWoh xzkeh.k ,y0ih0th0 vkj0th0th0,y0oh forjd ;kstuk ds rgr xzke ckyslj lrk esa tehu ckorA mijksDr fo"k; esa ys[k gS fd vki }kjk [kljk la[;k 2170 ds ckor lqpuk pkgh gS tks iVokjh gYdk ckyslj lrk dh fjiksVZ vuqlkj bl izdkj gSA 1- ;g gS fd [k0u0 2170 vkfnukad jktLo jsdkMZ+ pkyq tekcUnh 2064&2067 ds [kkrk la[;k 245 ds vuqlkj ckyslj lrk esa ntZ gSA 2- jktLFkku ljdkj dh vf/klwpuk l049 7 jkt1@2008 ikVZ 7@123 fnuakd 24-03-2008 ds }kjk u;k jktLo 'kghn isijflag uxj ?kksf"kr gqvk gS ftldk jktLo jsdkMZ+ l/kkj.k gksus ij mDr [kljk u;s jktLo xzke esa ntZ gksxkA mi rglhynkj ckyslj 11. From the aforesaid letter, it is clear that the land of Khasra No. 2170 was recorded as the land of village Balesar Satta only, though it is mentioned that it would be recorded as land of village Shaheed Pehep Singh Nagar in future. 12. It is also not in dispute that the earlier complaint, containing similar allegation was disposed of by the respondent - HPCL and thereafter the letter of intent was issued in favour of the petitioner on 05.05.2011. It is not the case of the respondent - HPCL that it has received the information from Nayab Tehsildar that Khasra No. 2170 is the part of the revenue village Shaheed Pehep Singh Nagar after the issuance of letter of intent to the petitioner. It is to be noticed that after receiving the letter of intent, the petitioner raised construction of showroom/godown and invested a huge amount and also obtained necessary permissions from the respective departments. 13. Looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is convinced that the action of respondent - HPCL of cancellation of candidature and empanelment of the petitioner as LPG Distributor for location - Balesar Satta and withdrawal of letter of intent vide impugned order is illegal and cannot be sustained. 14. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.11.2011 is quashed and set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.