JUDGMENT/ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. R. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 as well as Mr. R. De, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5. 2. The petitioner, respondent No.5 and some others participated in a tender process initiated by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) through an advertisement dated 30.09.2014, published in "The Assam Tribune", for appointment of LPG Distributor in various locations, including Jagiroad, in the district of Morigaon, which was reserved for Scheduled Tribe (ST) category applicants. The last date for submission of tender was fixed on 31.10.2014. In terms of Clause 9 of the Brochure on Guidelines for Selection of Regular LPG Distributors (for short, "Guidelines"), a draw of lot was held on 12.12.2014 amongst the technically valid tenderers including the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 to select one of them for the purpose of allotment of distributorship at Jagiroad. In the draw of lot, respondent No.5 was declared to be the selected candidate. 3. By filing the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called into question the selection of respondent No. 5 and has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to hold a second draw of lot with eligible candidates, including the petitioner. 4. The precise and short submission of Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No. 5 did not own any land and had taken a plot of land, on lease, for the purpose of construction of showroom, from one Bagiram Dewri wherein he had described himself as the absolute owner of the demised plot of land. While admitting that in terms of Clause 6.1. (viii) of the Guidelines, an applicant who does not own a plot of land can submit tender on the strength of a registered lease deed executed for a minimum period of fifteen years, Mr. Chakraborty submits that the lessor of respondent No. 5 was only a co-pattadar in respect of the plot of land under the lease agreement and, therefore, he was not an absolute owner. Chakraborty submits that the lessor of respondent No. 5 was only a co-pattadar in respect of the plot of land under the lease agreement and, therefore, he was not an absolute owner. It is submitted by him that the records of right eloquently demonstrate that the lessor of respondent No. 5 was not the sole owner of the plot of land and, therefore, the candidature of respondent No. 5 was liable to be rejected and such tenderer cannot be allotted the distributorship. 5. Mr. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has submitted that the respondent No. 5 was held to be technically qualified and was called for the draw of lot on the basis of information supplied by her. It is submitted by him that the lease deed submitted by the respondent No. 5 will go to show that the lessor of respondent No. 5 had proclaimed himself to be the absolute owner of the plot of land measuring 4m X 6m of Dag No. 1074 under Patta No. 305 of village Markang Kuchi, under Gova Mouza, and, therefore, the submission of Mr. Chakraborty is wholly not tenable. Mr. Saikia has further submitted that the report of field verification of the plot of land as well as the Jamabandi of the land demonstrate that the plot of land belongs to Bagiram Dewri. He further submits that although a suit, being Title Suit No. 39/12, in respect of the plot of land in question was pending in the court of learned Munsiff at Morigaon, the said suit was decreed on 04.06.2015 on compromise. 6. Mr. De, while endorsing the submission of Mr. Saikia, has submitted that an enquiry was conducted with regard to the plot of land and, on being satisfied, a lease agreement was entered into by the respondent No. 5 with Bagiram Dewri. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record including the affidavits filed. I have also perused the record produced by Mr. Saikia, which also contains the Jamabandi in respect of the land in question. 8. It appears that applicants are treated to be technically qualified based on the information contained in the application form and, accordingly, are called for draw of lot. I have also perused the record produced by Mr. Saikia, which also contains the Jamabandi in respect of the land in question. 8. It appears that applicants are treated to be technically qualified based on the information contained in the application form and, accordingly, are called for draw of lot. Only after a successful candidate emerges after draw of lot, the documents and other credentials of the selected candidate are verified and field verification is also conducted. 9. Clause 6.1. (viii) of the Guidelines provides that the applicants should own a suitable shop of minimum size of 3 meters by 4.5 meters in dimension or a plot of land for construction of showroom of minimum size 3 meters by 4.5 meters as on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any) at the advertised location or locality mentioned in the advertisement. It is further provided that the land should be easily accessible to general public through a suitable approach road. 10. The expression "own" is clarified in reference to Clause 6. (vii) and (viii) as under : "Own means having ownership title of the property or registered lease agreement for minimum 15 yrs in the name of applicant/family member, as defined in multiple distributorship norm of eligibility criteria. In case of ownership/co-ownership by family members (s) as given above, consent in the form of a Notarized Affidavit from the family members (s) will be required." 11. It is an admitted position that the respondent No. 5 did not own a plot of land, but had a lease agreement with Bagiram Dewri. In the application submitted by respondent No. 5 for the distributorship in question, in the column under the heading "Date of registration of sale deed/gift deed/lease deed/date of mutation", only "29-10-13" was mentioned without any indication to which, amongst the above, the date is relatable. In the column, "Relationship with applicant", it was mentioned as "SELF". In the column under the heading "Khasra No./Survey No.", Patta No. 305 and Dag No. 1074 is mentioned. The lease deed at Annexure-4 was executed on 29.10.2013 and it appears that this is the date which is referred to in the application form. In the column, "Relationship with applicant", it was mentioned as "SELF". In the column under the heading "Khasra No./Survey No.", Patta No. 305 and Dag No. 1074 is mentioned. The lease deed at Annexure-4 was executed on 29.10.2013 and it appears that this is the date which is referred to in the application form. It is recited in the said lease deed that Bagiram Dewri is the absolute owner of a plot of land measuring 4 X 6 meters, situated at Jagiroad Revenue Town Kissam under Gova Mouza of Mayong Revenue Circle, bearing Dag No. 1074 of P.P. No. 305, Vill. Markang Kuchi, P.S. Jagiroad, Dist. Morigaon, Assam. The Schedule of the land, as indicated in the lease deed is as follows : "SCHEDULE OF LAND A plot of land measuring 4 X 6 mtrs, situated a Jagiroad Revenue Town Kissam under Gova Mouza of Mayong Revenue Circle, bearing Dag No. 1074, P.O. No. 305, Vill. Markang Kuchi, P.S. Jagiroad, Dist. Morigaon, Assam, bounded by North - Owner (Bagiram Dewri) South - Sunti Dewri East - Road West - Owner (Bagiram Dewri)" 12. Respondent No. 5 has not brought on record any document to demonstrate that on the date of submission of tender Bagiram Dewri was the owner of the plot of land measuring 4 X 6 meters which he leased out to the petitioner vide lease agreement dated 29.10.2013. 13. Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that pursuant to the order dated 02.08.2017, passed in I.A. (C) No. 1108/2017, a copy of the Jamabandi, which is produced before the court today, was given to Mr. R. De, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. Mr. De has not disputed the same. The record produced by Mr. Saikia also contains the same Jamabandi. 14. The Jamabandi of the land in question goes to show that the name of Bagiram Dewri along with the names of Pileni Dewri, Jadav Dewri and Sunti Dewri, they being successor-in-interest of Late Lakhiram Dewri, were mutated vide order dated 24.02.2009 passed by the Circle Officer in respect of land measuring 1 Katha 15 Lecha, under Dag No. 1074 of P.P. No. 305. The Jamabandi further discloses that land measuring 1 Katha 6 Lecha, under Dag No. 1074 of P.P. No. 305, was mutated in the name of Bagiram Dewri, only on 06.12.2016. The Jamabandi further discloses that land measuring 1 Katha 6 Lecha, under Dag No. 1074 of P.P. No. 305, was mutated in the name of Bagiram Dewri, only on 06.12.2016. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be legitimately drawn is that the claim of Bagiram Dewri in the lease deed that he is the absolute owner of the plot of land measuring 4 X 6 meters, was not true as on the day of execution of the lease agreement, he was not the absolute owner of the said plot of land, but was a co-owner only along with some others. 15. Provision of Clause 6.1 and the clarification of the term "own" are already noted in an earlier part of this judgement. At the cost of repetition, it is stated that the applicants should own a suitable shop or plot of land of specified dimensions as indicated in Clause 6.1, as on the last date for submission of application. "Own" is clarified to mean having ownership title of the property. "Own" is also clarified to mean having registered lease agreement for minimum fifteen years in the name of the applicant. 16. Registered lease deed, it goes without saying, is to be executed by a person who has ownership title of the property. Owner of a plot of land and co-owner of a plot of land are entirely two different things having different legal connotations and dimensions. A co-owner of a plot of land does not have ownership of a definite area within the plot of land and, as such, cannot execute a lease deed in respect of a specified area. In the lease deed, a specified boundary of the land was given projecting that the lessor was the absolute owner, while he was not. Therefore, the said registered lease deed cannot satisfy the requirement of owning a plot of land in terms of clarification as noticed above. As such, the application of the respondent No. 5 was defective in respect of a core element. 17. Mr. De had submitted that an enquiry was made in respect of the land in question. It is not understood what kind of enquiry was made. A verification of the land records would have immediately revealed the ownership of the land in question. Apparently, the respondent No. 5 did not undertake any such exercise. 18. 17. Mr. De had submitted that an enquiry was made in respect of the land in question. It is not understood what kind of enquiry was made. A verification of the land records would have immediately revealed the ownership of the land in question. Apparently, the respondent No. 5 did not undertake any such exercise. 18. Subsequent mutation of the name of Bagiram Dewri over the plot of land is of no consequence. The validity of a tender is to be judged on the date of submission of tender and, in the instant case, on the last date of submission of tender on 31.10.2014, the lessor of respondent No. 5 was not the absolute owner of the land in question. 19. Having regard to the above, I am of the considered opinion that the tender of respondent No.5 being defective, her selection in the draw of lot as a successful candidate, cannot entitle her to award of the distributorship. Consequently, the respondent Nos.1 to 4 are directed to conduct a re-draw of lot among the eligible tenderers, including the petitioner and, then, proceed in accordance with law. 20. Writ petition is allowed. No cost.