JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is for quashing the letter bearing Ref. No.RAO/D1/rejection dated 21.08.2018 (Annexure-6) issued by the respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner has been informed that her candidature for allotment of dealership of Liquefied Petroleum Gas under Advertisement dated 13.08.2017 has been rejected and the amount of Rs.40,000/-deposited by the petitioner stands forfeited for the reason that the land offered by the petitioner for consideration of show-room does not fall under the advertised location and no alternative land has been offered during the field verification. 2. Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that three interlocutory applications have been filed being I.A. Nos.3255 of 2019, 1087 of 2019 and 1086 of 2019. He submits that before proceeding with the matter appropriate order may be passed in interlocutory application being I.A. No.3255 of 2019 since therein the subsequent advertisement dated 12.01.2019 has been challenged as also in I.A. No.1086 of 2019 which has been filed for impleadment of one Md. Basiruddin as respondent No.4 to the writ petition on the ground that in pursuance to the subsequent advertisement dated 12.01.2019, the said Md. Basiruddin has been declared to be successful and therefore, he is necessary party since the said result has been declared during pendency of the writ petition and now the authority is to allot the dealership in his favour. An objection to both the interlocutory applications has been filed by the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation while disputing the ground that the amendment as has been sought for by the petitioner in the aforesaid interlocutory applications may not be allowed since the petitioner has not participated in terms of the advertisement dated 12.01.2019 and as such she is having no locus to assail the said advertisement since she has not participated in the said tender. If any bidder has been declared to be successful in the process of selection, the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved with the said decision and therefore, both the amendment petitions have been prayed to be rejected on the aforesaid ground. 3. If any bidder has been declared to be successful in the process of selection, the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved with the said decision and therefore, both the amendment petitions have been prayed to be rejected on the aforesaid ground. 3. This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and looking to their rival submissions, deems it fit and proper to hear the matter on merit in order to examine the factual aspect as to whether the petitioner has been able to make out a case for passing any positive order in her favour and if any positive decision would be taken by this Court in favour of the petitioner, then the prayer made by the petitioner in these two interlocutory applications needs to be allowed and therefore this Court has proceeded for hearing up the matter in detail and the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued out the matter in detail so far as the original pleading made in the writ petition by the petitioner as also the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. 4. The whole question raised by the petitioner in the original writ petition is regarding the rejection of her candidature on the ground that on field verification of the information submitted by her in her application, the land offered for show-room is not in the advertised location and no alternative land has been offered during the field verification credential. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of the advertisement which is the subject matter of the original writ petition she has made application wherefrom it is evident that the applications have been notified for settling the dealership of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas in the rural area of Damdama location falling under Damdama Gram Panchayat in Maheshpur Block in the District of Pakur for marketing plan of the year 2017-18. 6. According to the petitioner, she has submitted the relevant documents by holding the land for opening of show-room in Damdama Panchayat and even though she is having land under the location of Damdama Gram Panchayat, her candidature has been rejected without appreciating the fact that the authority themselves have come to the conclusion while considering the location at the time of field verification that her land is situated at Damdama Panchayat and as such the reason for rejection of the candidature is absolutely improper and illegal. 7. Further submission is that the authority while taking such decision of rejection of her candidature has assigned the reason that her land is not situated in Mouza Damdama while in the advertisement there is no reference of the word 'Mouza' rather it has been reflected in the advertisement “Gram Panchayat” but even though the land for opening of the show-room is situated in the Damdama Gram Panchayat but taking reference of the word Mouza-Damdama, it has been rejected which is purely non-application of mind, therefore, the rejection of the candidature of petitioner is absolutely improper and illegal. 8. Mr. Amar Nath Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation has submitted that there is no error in the decision taken by the authority since the petitioner has offered the land for opening of the show-room in village-Raghunathpur, Maheshpur in the district of Pakur showing the land in the name of Smt. Promila Ghosh and as such the same is not falling under Damdama Gram Panchayat rather in the village-Raghunathpur, hence, in view of the specific reference made for location i.e., of Damdama in the Gram Panchayat Damdama, the authority, on field verification, has found that the land is not falling under the purview of the location as reflected in the advertisement. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in response, has submitted by referring to brochure appended to the writ petition therein that the location has been defined as under condition No.1(Y) which means that the earmark area for opening of the distributorship of LPG, the word 'location' would mean that an area/village/group of village/town or city as has been reflected in the notice inviting application and therefore, the land of the petitioner is falling under Gram Panchayat Damdama which is under Raghunathpur village and as such she is fulfilling the condition as per the definition of location provided under the brochure as reflected under condition No.1(I), as such, the rejection of her candidature is contrary to the definition of the location as stipulated in the brochure. 10. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciating their rival submissions, it is evident from the material available on record and from the arguments advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties that the petitioner has participated in terms of the notice inviting application for settling the dealership for Liquefied Petroleum Gas in rural area of Damdama Gram Panchayat having location at Damdama, which is a rural area of Mahespur Block in District Pakur. 11. It is evident from the application form for appointment of LPG distributor which has been filed by the petitioner that the name of location has been referred therein as Damdama, Gram Panchayat as Damdama, Block Mahespur, District Pakur, State-Jharkhand. 12. In the appendix 2 of the column which contains the description to be furnished by the applicant with respect to location of the land for LPG godown. The question of land for LPG godown is not the issue herein since according to the respondents, there is no infirmity in the aforesaid location as has been provided by the petitioner for LPG godown. 13. Under the column No.6, the reference by the applicant with respect to the address of location of the land for establishment of show-room wherein it is evident that the petitioner has furnished the address of the land as “village-Raghunathpur, P.O. Malaypur (Birkity), P.S. Maheshpur, District-Pakur.” 14. It is on the basis of the aforesaid application, a field verification was conducted by the respondent-authority which has been filled up by the respondent authority as has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit to the instant record wherefrom it is evident from the verification report pertaining to the establishment as reflected under column No.6 which has been remarked as incorrect since the land offered in the application is Khasra No.316, Village-Raghunathpur, Maheshpur, Pakur and as such, the candidature of petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the offered land is not situated in advertised Mouza-Damdama, thereafter, the second advertisement has been issued in which the petitioner has not participated, however, some candidates have been selected but their candidature has been rejected and again third advertisement has been issued on 12.01.2019 in which also the petitioner has not participated, however, in the process of selection one Md. Basiruddin has been declared to be successful. 15. Basiruddin has been declared to be successful. 15. This Court has examined the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner since it is the assertion made herein that the Damdama is an area under which the Raghunathpur village is there and as such the land provided for opening of the show-room is having no infirmity. This aforesaid contention has been examined by the petitioner by going across the condition of the advertisement along with the location and the other description for opening of show-room which provides that the location would be Damdama falling under Gram Panchayat Damdama, Block Maheshpur, District Pakur. 16. Admittedly, the petitioner has furnished the detail as would be evident from her application form giving therein the name of location as Damdama and Gram Panchayat Damdama but the details of the land furnished having Khasra No.316 is falling under village Raghunathpur, however, learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to impress upon the Court by referring to the reference made at appendix-P annexed to the counter affidavit as Annexure-R/1 wherein it has been reflected while referring to the physical verification of the land made on 14.02.2018 i.e., of the land appertaining to Khata No.82/3, Plot No.252, Mouza-Raghunathpur, Panchayat-Damdama, Block-Maheshpur, Pakur, the said details of the land has been furnished for opening of the godown and on the basis of that reference, the authorities have given the certificate that the offered land for opening of the godown is situated within 15 k.ms. range of outer boundary of advertised location, therefore, it cannot be presumed and accepted that the land which has been offered by the petitioner for opening of the show-room is not under Damdama Panchayat, but no decision can be taken merely on inference and merely on fact that if the petitioner is having the land situated at 15 k.ms. range of outer boundary of advertised location, therefore, it cannot be presumed and accepted that the land which has been offered by the petitioner for opening of the show-room is not under Damdama Panchayat, but no decision can be taken merely on inference and merely on fact that if the petitioner is having the land situated at 15 k.ms. from the offered land for opening of godown, it will be inferred that the land offered for opening of show-room would be within the periphery of the Damdama Panchayat rather this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not supposed to go on inference as has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner rather to go on the specific field verification conducted by the authority while taking decision in this regard wherein they have come to the conclusive finding that the land pertaining to Khasra No.316 is under village Raghunathpur and therefore, there is no reason to take a contrary view from the said fact finding with respect to location of the land on the basis of the argument advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner as referred hereinabove. 17. In view of the aforesaid factual aspect and taking into consideration the power of judicial review to be exercised by the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India according to the considered view of this Court that when the authorities on field verification has taken decision holding therein that the land offered by the petitioner for opening of show-room is not under the Gram Panchayat Damdama rather in village-Raghunathpur and as such it would not be appropriate for this Court to show any inference with the said decision taken by the authority. 18. In view thereof, this Court refrains itself in interfering with the decision taken by the authority by rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the aforesaid ground. 19. Since this Court is not interfering with the decision taken by the authorities, therefore, there is no reason to allow the prayer made in the interlocutory application being I.A. Nos.3255 of 2019 and 1086 of 2019. 20. In view thereof, both the interlocutory applications are dismissed. 21. 19. Since this Court is not interfering with the decision taken by the authorities, therefore, there is no reason to allow the prayer made in the interlocutory application being I.A. Nos.3255 of 2019 and 1086 of 2019. 20. In view thereof, both the interlocutory applications are dismissed. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture has argued out the case with respect to the second prayer which pertains to refund of the security amount of Rs.40,000/-since according to the petitioner, the respondent authorities can only forfeit 10% of the aforesaid security amount while on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Indian Oil Corporation has submitted by referring to Clause Nos.11, 17 and 26(B), therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get any refund as has been sought for by him in the second prayer. 22. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating their rival submissions, this Court before entering into this aspect of the matter deem it fit and proper to refer relevant provisions in this regard. The condition No.22 speaks about Security Deposit Money under which as per the condition No.A which has been stipulated that the selected candidate is to deposit the interest free refundable security deposit amount prior to issuance of the appointment letter while condition No.B stipulates that before issuance of LOI, the 10% security deposit amount deposited by the selected candidate would be adjusted. Condition No.26 stipulates the implication of giving wrong information wherein under condition No.B in case selection of the candidate is cancelled after Field Verification Credential (FVC) or issuance of LOI but before issuance of appointment letter, 10% of applicable security deposit amount would be forfeited deposited prior to the FVC. Condition No.26 stipulates the implication of giving wrong information wherein under condition No.B in case selection of the candidate is cancelled after Field Verification Credential (FVC) or issuance of LOI but before issuance of appointment letter, 10% of applicable security deposit amount would be forfeited deposited prior to the FVC. The aforesaid condition stipulated under condition Nos.22 and 26 since are in Hindi therefore, for ready reference, is referred hereinbelow:- ^^22- lqj{kk tekjkf'k ,- fu;qfDr i= tkjh gksus ds iwoZ p;fur mEehnokj dks lacaf/kr vks,elh ds ikl uhps ;FkkmfYyf[kr C;kt eqDr okilh ;ksX; lqj{kk jkf'k tek djuh gksxh%& lqj{kk tekjfk'k fMLVªhC;wVjf'ki dk izdkj [kqyh v-fi-o- v-tk-@v-t-tk- 'kgjh forjd :- 5 yk[k :- 4 yk[k :- 3 yk[k vkj&vcZu forjd :- 5 yk[k :- 4 yk[k :- 3 yk[k xzkeh.k forjd :- 4 yk[k :- 3 yk[k :- 2 yk[k nqxZe {ks=h; forjd ¼Mhdsoh½ :- 4 yk[k :- 3 yk[k :- 2 yk[k ch- ,yvksvkbZ tkjh gksus ds iwoZ ,yihth fMLVªhC;wVjf'ki ds lacaf/kr izdkj@Js.kh gsrq p;fur mEehnokj ls yh xbZ ykxw 10 izfr'kr lqj{kk tekjkf'k dks ;Fkkykxw lqj{kk tekjfk'k esa lek;ksftr dj fy;k tk,xkA lh- bLrhQk@fujLrhdj.k ds le; rsy foi.ku daifu;ksa ¼vks,elh½ ds ikl lqj{kk tekjkf'k jkf'k ls viuh fdlh Hkh ns;rk ds lek;kstu dk vf/kdkj lqjf{kr gSA rFkkfi] izekf.kr dnkpkj ds dkj.k fMLVªhC;wVjf'ki ds jn~n gksus ij mijksDr lqj{kk tekjkf'k dks tCr dj fy;k tk,xkA ^^26- xyr lwpuk nsuk ,- vkosnu vFkok mlds lkFk layXu nLrkostksa esa fn;k x;k dksbZ Hkh fooj.k ;k ckn esa mEehnokj }kjk vkosnu ds dze esa izLrqr dh xbZ dksbZ Hkh lwpuk fdlh Hkh Lrj ij ;fn fNikbZ xbZ@xyr wBh ikbZ tkrh gS] ftlls ik=rk izHkkfor gksrh gS rks fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk, vkosnu@mEehnokjh dks jn~n dj fn;k tk,xkA ch- ;fn ,Qohlh ds ckn vFkok ,yvksvkbZ tkjh gksus ds ckn fdarq fu;qfDr i= tkjh fd, tkus ls iwoZ mEehnokj ds p;u dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gS rks p;fur mEehnokj }kjk ,Qohlh iwoZ tek dh xbZ ykxw lqj{kk tekjkf'k dk 10 izfr'kr tCr dj fy;k tk,xkA lh- ;fn p;fur mEehnokj dks forjd ds :i esa fu;qDr dj fy;k x;k gS vkSj vkcaVu jn~n fd;k tk ldrk gS] rks mEehnokj }kjk tek jkf'k dh tCr fd, tkus ds lkFk&lkFk fMLVªhC;wVjf'ki fujLr dj fn;k tk,xkA Mh- mijksDr lHkh ekeyksa esa] p;fur mEehnokj@forjd }kjk lacaf/kr rsy daiuh ds fo:) fdlh Hkh rjg dk dksbZ nkok ugha fd;k tk ldsxkA^^ 23. In the light of the aforesaid condition the argument advanced by the parties has been appreciated by this Court. 24. Admittedly, the petitioner was seeking to get dealership in the rural area wherein it was required to deposit Rs.4,00,000/-as per the amount referred under the table as contained under condition No.22 and 10% of that has been deposited by the petitioner by way of security deposit. 25. The selection of the petitioner/candidate has been cancelled after the FVC and before issuance of the appointment letter, no LOI has been issued and as such, the security deposit amount deposited by the petitioner is to be forfeited in view of the condition stipulated under Condition No.26(B) of the brochure but here the issue has been raised that what be the quantum since according to the petitioner, 10% of the security deposit amount deposited by her i.e., Rs.40,000/-of Rs.4,00,000/-, 10% of which is Rs.4,000/-, therefore, an amount of Rs.4,000 is to be forfeited while according to the respondent an amount of Rs.40,000/-is to be forfeited. 26. This Court after going across the condition stipulated under condition No.22 read with condition No.26 is of the view that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation is to be accepted for the reason of stipulation made under condition No.26(B) wherein it has been stipulated that 10% of the applicable security deposit amount is to be forfeited ( ykxw lqj{kk tekjkf'k dk 10 izfr'kr tCr dj fy;k tk,xk ), when the word 'applicable security deposit' is there, therefore, the applicable security deposit is Rs.4,00,000/-for the rural distributors as is apparent from the table appended to condition No.22 as referred hereinabove and therefore, the entire amount of security deposit that was 10% of the security deposit amount i.e., Rs.4,00,000/-that would come to Rs.40,000/-would be forfeited, which would be 10% of the applicable security deposit amount and therefore, the contention as has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable to this Court in this regard and hence, no relief is to be extended in favour of the petitioner by issuing a positive direction in this regard to the effect that after deducting Rs.4,000/-the remaining amount i.e., Rs.36,000/-is to be refunded for the reason aforesaid. 27. 27. In view thereof, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for passing a positive direction with respect to this prayer, therefore the same is having no merit and accordingly dismissed. 28. In consequence of the dismissal of the writ petition, pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.