ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the office order no. RAO/D1/Rejection dated 28.06.2018 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) issued under the signature of the respondent no.2-Chief Area manager, Ranchi Area Office, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (MD), Ranchi whereby the candidature of the petitioner for LPG distributorship at Bara Kanjiya, District- East Singhbhum under open category advertised on 13.08.2017, Type of LPG Distributorship: Gramin Vitrak, has been rejected and the amount of Rs.40,000/- deposited with the respondent- Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. has been forfeited. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order dated 28.06.2018 submits that in the field verification report, it has been mentioned that Appendix-2 of the Brochure on Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors could not be submitted by the petitioner’s father- Dasmat Mardi, but the said Appendix-2 could not have been submitted by Dasmat Mardi as he had already died before the petitioner applied for the said LPG distributorship. The respondents have also not intimated any other requirement to be fulfilled by the petitioner and therefore, the impugned order dated 28.06.2018 has been passed in a complete arbitrary manner. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents while relying on the counter affidavit filed on their behalf submits that Column Nos. 5 and 6 of the application clearly indicated that the land offered by the petitioner for the showroom and godown is in the name of his father Dasmat Mardi. However, the said fact was not found to be correct as during the field verification, it was noticed that the land offered by the petitioner pertaining to plot no. 1326, khata no. 179 is recorded jointly in the name of Dasmat Mardi (the father of the petitioner), Seral Mardi and Dula Mardi as per the Khatiyan submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner asserted before the respondents that the ancestral land of his father has been inherited by him and his sister. However, no document was submitted before the respondents to show that the said land was mutated in his name before submission of the application. The petitioner has also not submitted the declaration of his sister to the effect that she has no objection if the petitioner constructs the godown or showroom on the said land after getting the Letter of Intent of the distributorship. 4. The petitioner has also not submitted the declaration of his sister to the effect that she has no objection if the petitioner constructs the godown or showroom on the said land after getting the Letter of Intent of the distributorship. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and looking into the materials available on record, it appears that the case of the petitioner is based on the comments made in the field verification report that Appendix-2 of the Brochure on Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors could not be submitted by Dasmat Mardi- the petitioner’s father. The said Appendix-2 is meant for the family members as defined in the eligibility criteria other than the applicant. According to the petitioner, since his father- Dasmat Mardi had already died, there was no question of submitting of Appendix-2 by a dead person. On the other hand, the case of the respondents is that the land for which the distributorship is applied by an applicant should either be owned by the applicant or if the said land is in the name of any other person, his consent/no objection is required to be submitted. 5. Admittedly, the land offered by the petitioner for the LPG distributorship is his ancestral land, which is recorded in the khatiyan jointly in the name of Dasmat Mardi, Seral Mardi and Dula Mardi. If the petitioner claims that he has inherited the land from the late Dasmat Mardi, he should have produced the mutation of the land in question in his favour. The petitioner has also admitted that the said land has been inherited by her sister also, however Appendix-2 has not been submitted by the petitioner’s sister so as to suggest that she does not have any objection on issuance of the Letter of Intent in favour of the petitioner for construction of godown/showroom over the said land. 6. Vide letter dated 08.04.2018 (Annexure R-5 to the counter affidavit), the respondents informed the petitioner that the ownership of the land offered by him is not clear and thus he was requested to submit alternate land document within three days of receipt of the said letter. In response to the same, the petitioner vide letter dated 14.04.2018 informed the respondents that he has no alternate land for godown and showroom. In response to the same, the petitioner vide letter dated 14.04.2018 informed the respondents that he has no alternate land for godown and showroom. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 28.06.2018, the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected and an amount of Rs.40,000/- deposited by him has been forfeited. It is a settled law that exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is plenary in nature. The same is to be exercised by the writ court in tender/contract matters under exceptional circumstances if the State/its instrumentality is found to have committed serious irregularity in the decision making process adversely affecting the right of a citizen. On perusal of the record, I do not find any such irregularity committed by the respondents in the decision making process. Accordingly, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned office order no. RAO/D1/Rejection dated 28.06.2018 issued under the signature of the respondent no.2. 7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.