JUDGMENT Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the order dated 07.01.2013 issued by the Chief Area Manager, Ranchi Area Office of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited has been assailed by which the application of the petitioner for award of distribution of Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) under Rajiv Gandhi Rural LPG Distribution Scheme (hereinafter to be referred to as RGGLV) has been found to be not fit for issuance of Letter of Intent. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance to the advertisement as contained under Annexure-1 to the writ petition, the petitioner has made application for consideration of distributorship. 3. According to the petitioner, he being eligible on several accounts, has made application and the application having been found to be in order in all respect, he was called upon on 02.08.2012 for the draw for selection amongst the qualified applicants for RGGLV at Hiranpur (Serial N.70) to the said advertisement. The petitioner has been selected in the said draw on 24.08.2012 which has been communicated by the competent authority of the respondent for issuance of Letter of Intent. The land of the petitioner was also inspected by the authorized officer who has submitted a report on 31.10.2012 finding the land of the petitioner suitable for the godown and office of the gas agency to be opened at the Hiranpur village. The Letter of Intent has been issued with respect to other applicants but when the same has not been issued in favour of the petitioner, he had contacted with the respondent authorities. Subsequently, he has received a communication dated 14.01.2013 informing him about the rejection of is candidature on the ground that the land is in the name of his grandfather who is outside family unit and therefore, has found not fit for issuance of Letter of Intent. 4. According to the petitioner, the land in question although originally in the name of the grandfather but his father being the only son, inherited the landed property in question as also he being the only son of his father, has become absolute owner of the landed property and, therefore, the petitioner has got absolute right over the landed property. 4. According to the petitioner, the land in question although originally in the name of the grandfather but his father being the only son, inherited the landed property in question as also he being the only son of his father, has become absolute owner of the landed property and, therefore, the petitioner has got absolute right over the landed property. The respondent authority ought to have considered this aspect of the matter but without considering the same the decision has been taken by rejecting the candidature on the ground of non-fulfilment of the condition as provided under Condition No. (t) of the advertisement as contained under Annexure-1, therefore, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 6. None is present to press that counter affidavit but after going across the same, it transpires therefrom that the stand taken inter alia therein that the petitioner was selected by draw but in its scrutiny it has been found that the petitioner has mentioned that the land for establishing the godown and showroom is in the name of his father but later on, on field verification it was found that the petitioner had misrepresented the fact that the land was not in the name of his father, rather, it was in the name of his grandfather who has died much before. The respondent authorities, on that ground, has rejected the candidature of the petitioner by holding about non-fulfilment of the terms and conditions, therefore, there is no illegality in the decision taken by the authority. 7. Rejoinder has been filed to said counter affidavit disputing the stand taken by the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the counter affidavit. 8. This Court, after having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone across the affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioner as also Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, has found therefrom some undisputed fact which is being enumerated herein below :- (i) The oil company has come out with an advertisement as contained under Annexure-1 inviting applications for allotment of distributorship of the Liquid Petroleum Gas under the RGGLV. The said advertisement contains certain eligibility criteria, one of the same is mentioned under Condition No. ¼t½ which speaks about the mentioning of ownership which means that an applicant/multiple dealership/distributorship will have clear and absolute title over the land. If the ownership is by way of a member of a family or in the capacity of co-sharer, the consent of the other family members would be required. (ii) The application which is to be filed by one or the other candidate is also reflected in the said advertisement to be filled up in due format. In the case of no objection to be submitted by the co-sharer or in the capacity of member of the family, a notarized affidavit is to be filed as per the format reflected in the said advertisement. (iii) The petitioner has made application which has been brought on record by Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as under Annexure R/A wherein the reference under column of establishment of godown or the showroom, the petitioner has filled up the column by showing his title on the basis of the title of his father. (iv) The respondent authorities on scrutiny of the said application has considered the same and found the same application in order, therefore, has called upon the petitioner for participation in the draw in which the petitioner has been found to be successful. (v) The advertisement also contains a condition at Condition No.13 thereof wherein it has been provided that the site of the selected candidates would be inspected and if in course thereof any information has been found to be incorrect, the Letter of Intent would not be issued and the same would be issued only if the information furnished by one or the other candidates in the application is found to be correct. (vi) The respondent authorities, in terms of the condition stipulated under Condition No.13, have inspected the site and have also verified the original document of the land and in course thereof, it has been found that the land is in the name of the grandfather and on that ground the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected. 9. Mr. (vi) The respondent authorities, in terms of the condition stipulated under Condition No.13, have inspected the site and have also verified the original document of the land and in course thereof, it has been found that the land is in the name of the grandfather and on that ground the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected. 9. Mr. Sachi Nandan Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the ground for rejection is not at all proper in view of the fact that under the Mohammedan Law the petitioner will inherit the property even of the grandfather, more particularly in the present case, the land actually in the name of the grandfather but the father of the petitioner being the only son has inherited the property and after his death, the petitioner being the only son of his father, will also be said to be absolute owner and, therefore, reference of the owner of the land has been disclosed as of his father showing the relationship therein. 10. This Court has appreciated the aforesaid argument from the condition stipulated under Condition No. ¼³½ wherein the family unit has been dealt with. It is evident from the said clause containing definition of family unit which means individual or his husband/wife and his unmarried sons/daughters. That pertains to the condition if the applicant is married individual/applicant but in a case of unmarried individual/applicant, the family unit means his mother/father and his unmarried brothers and sisters. In a case of divorcee, the family unit means unmarried sons/unmarried daughters who are dependent upon the applicant. In case of widow or widower, the family unit means individual including unmarried sons and unmarried daughters. 11. If the said condition would be read along with Condition No. ¼t½ specific condition has been stipulated therein that if the property is having different title holders, the consent of the other family members would be required. 12. In view of the aforesaid condition, the contention which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner about applicability of the Mohammedan Law will not be of any aid to the petitioner it is for the reason that if any condition is provided in the Notice Inviting Application, the candidature of one or the other candidates is to be tested on the basis of such terms and conditions without any interpretation and without taking aid of any law. If such interpretation would be allowed, which is nothing but relaxing the condition of one or the other candidates and the relaxation cannot be accorded by the concerned competent authority, it is for the reason that if relaxation would be granted to a particular candidate the question would be why not to others and if such relaxation is said to be provided, the same is nothing but in the teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as because if such relaxation would be granted in absence of any such stipulation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement, the other similarly situated candidates would be debarred by not getting an opportunity for consideration of candidature. 13. Therefore, this Court is of the view that if a particular condition has been inserted in the Notice Inviting Application, the candidates are supposed to be fill up the said requirement and if not, the candidature is to be rejected. 14. In the present case, the candidature of the petitioner has been accepted and has also been declared successful in the draw but as per the condition stipulated under Condition No.13 which provides a condition for inspection of site and other documents before issuance of Letter of Intent and in course thereof, the details furnished by the petitioner in the application has been found to be incorrect since the petitioner has furnished the details about title of the land in the name of his father but actually the land was in the name of his grandfather, therefore, the said fact has wrongly been disclosed in the said application. 15. The wrong declaration has been furnished only to meet out and fill up the lacuna of absence of the absolute title of the petitioner over the landed property in question. 16. Further, even accepting that the petitioner is one of the title holder and in that situation he is required to fill up the application form along with the consent as required under Condition No. ¼t½ along with the affidavit as per the format given in the advertisement but as would be evident from the application which has been annexed in the counter affidavit, no such notarized affidavit is there. 17. 17. Further, from the field verification report it also transpires that the residential certificate was not submitted in the standard format by the candidate and by taking the ground that the grandfather is outside the family unit as per the condition stipulated under Condition No. ¼³½ the authority has taken such decision. 18. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of certiorari as per the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is settled position of law so far as the issuance of writ of certiorari is concerned, that the same can be issued if there is any error/flaw in the decision taken by the authority or the decision is without jurisdiction or contrary to any statutory provision but as per the detailed discussion made hereinabove, from the material available on record, this Court is of the view it is neither the case of any jurisdictional error or the decision taken contrary to the statutory provision or the decision is having any perversity, rather, the decision for rejection of the claim is based upon non-fulfilment of the conditions and the incomplete application form and incorrect disclosure made in the said application. 19. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to issue writ of certiorari by quashing the decision of the authority as contained under Annexure 3. 20. This writ petition fails and accordingly dismissed.