JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: 1. By an appropriate writ, order or direction the notification (Annex.6) may kindly be declared illegal to the extent of LPG distributionship for Jodhiyasi at Sr. No.18. 2. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to allot the LPG distribution for Jodhiyasi, District- Nagaur to the petitioner." Facts in brief: 2. The petitioner applied for allotment of Rural LPG Distributorship at the location Jodhiyasi, District Nagaur in furtherance of an advertisement issued by the respondent IOCL. Having been found suitable on all aspects, the petitioner was invited to participate in the draw of lots conducted on 29.11.2017. She was selected in the draw and was advised to deposit the requisite fee of Rs.40,000/- with the authorised officer vide letter/communication dated 30.11.2017. The petitioner further claims that the officials of the respondent Corporation carried out the field verification credentials and verified the location offered by the petitioner for godown/showroom. Despite fulfilling all eligibility criterion/requirements of the Rural LPG Distributorship, the petitioner who was eagerly awaiting the Letter of Intent, was shocked to see a fresh notification published in the Dainik Bhaskar newspaper on 1.4.2018 for online draw of lots for the distributorship of Jodhiyasi. The petitioner claims that the respondents could not have readvertised the location Jodhiyasi for draw of lots in view of the fact that she had been declared successful for the same in the selection process. Thereupon, the instant writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner seeking to assail the fresh notification (Annex.6) whereunder, the lottery for the various Rural LPG Distributorships including the location Jodhiyasi was proposed to be held by all the four Oil Companies. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to allot her the Rural LPG Distributorship for the location Jodhiyasi. 3. While entertaining the writ petition, this Court passed an interim order in favour of the petitioner on 4.4.2018 restraining the respondents from undertaking the fresh draw of lots for the location Jodhiyasi. 4. Shri Sandeep Shah Advocate put in appearance on behalf of the respondent Corporation and has filed a detailed reply to the writ petition. 3. While entertaining the writ petition, this Court passed an interim order in favour of the petitioner on 4.4.2018 restraining the respondents from undertaking the fresh draw of lots for the location Jodhiyasi. 4. Shri Sandeep Shah Advocate put in appearance on behalf of the respondent Corporation and has filed a detailed reply to the writ petition. Alongwith the reply, copy of the letter dated 27.3.2018 has been annexed whereby, the respondents allegedly communicated the petitioner with rejection of her candidature in the following terms: "Please refer your application No. IOC IOC01311057622092017 and our ref. No nil dtd. 30.11.2017 for award of above-mentioned LPG Distributorship. We regret to inform you that upon field verification of the information submitted by you in your application mentioned above, the following variance was observed. 1. You have offered land for show room at village : Teetari which is not the advertised location. We had advised you to offer alternate land for Showroom, however vide your letter ref. nil dtd. 29.01.2018 you have confirmed that you don't have any alternate land for Showroom. The eligibility criteria for showroom as per clause no. 8(n) of Brochure for Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors Show Room land are as below: "The applicant should 'Own' a suitable shop for Showroom of minimum size 3 metre by 4.5 metre in outer dimension or a plot of land for construction of showroom of minimum size 3 metre by 4.5 metre as on the last date for submission of application as specified either in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any) at the advertised location i.e. within the municipal/town/village limits of the place which is mentioned under the column of 'location' in the advertisement". In view of the above, your candidature is rejected and the amount of Rs.40,000/- deposited with the Corporation stands forfeited in the line with above mentioned brochure clause no. 19." 5. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the reply claiming that the letter dated 27.3.2018 was posted on 31.3.2018 and was received by the petitioner on 6.4.2018 and thus, she could not annex the same with the writ petition. The petitioner further claims that she did not write the letter dated 29.1.2018 to the respondents expressing her inability to provide the alternative location. The petitioner further claims that she did not write the letter dated 29.1.2018 to the respondents expressing her inability to provide the alternative location. The petitioner has claimed in the rejoinder that land offered by her (owned by her father in law) for award of the dealership was located just 1 Km. away from the village Jodhiyasi. The petitioner asserts that no query to provide alternate land was ever communicated to her in writing. Alongwith the rejoinder, the petitioner has annexed copy of a sale deed dated 22.6.2006 executed by one Deen Mohd. in favour of Smt. Aaychuki, the maternal grandmother-in-law of Shri Praveen Jandu being the petitioner's husband. At para No.8 of the rejoinder, the petitioner has claimed that the size of the plot is 164.88 sq. yards and that the said alternative land is being offered by her for setting up the distributorship as the same is located in the village Jodhiyasi. 6. In counter to these submissions of the petitioner, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith the communication/letter dated 29.1.2018 issued to the petitioner by the Corporation official Shri Anuj Pratap Singh and the reply thereto forwarded by the petitioner in which, she has categorically mentioned that she does not have any alternative land in the village Jodhiyasi. 7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel Shri Kan Singh Oad representing the petitioner urged that the petitioner hails from a rural background and she was casually asked by the field verification officer on 29.1.2018 to provide the alternative land and at the spur of the moment, she had no option but to reply that no such land was available. However, when the petitioner consulted with her husband, they recollected that land, ad measuring 168 sq.yards owned by her husband's maternal grandmother Smt. Aaychuki located in the village Jodhiyasi, could be offered for setting up of the godown. He contended that the maternal grandparents on the mother's side and the father's side of the applicant are included within the definition of "Family" as per the guidelines and that the spouse of the applicant i.e. the petitioner's husband, is a co-applicant as per the dealership guidelines and hence, even the land of the grandparents of the husband of the petitioner has to be considered as fulfilling the requirement of the dealership guidelines as being land owned by the Family Members. On these grounds, he implored the Court to quash the impugned advertisement and to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for award of the dealership in question. 8. Per contra, Shri Sandeep Shah Advocate representing the respondent Corporation vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel and urged that the definition of the family members and own land as contained in the dealership guidelines, cannot be stretched to such an extent so as to lead to absurdity. He contends that only the applicant's grandparents (maternal/paternal) are included in the definition of family members and since the alternative land being offered by the petitioner was not owned by any of the defined family member, the same cannot be accepted for award of dealership. Shri Shah placed heavy reliance on the judgment dated 21.9.2015 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Anju Prajapat Vs. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Anr. passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5837/2014 and urged that the controversy involved in the writ petition is squarely covered by the said judgment and hence, the writ petition merits dismissal. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through the material available on record. 10. So far as the issue regarding the petitioner having expressed the inability to offer alternative land on 29.1.2018 is concerned, the same appears to be the out come of the abrupt query put up to her by the officer while conducting the field verification of the land originally offered by the petitioner. The petitioner hails from a rural background and thus, she might not have been able to comprehend at the spur of the moment that alternative land of the family members could be offered by her for the purpose. Thus, the said reply (Annex.R2/3) given by the petitioner to the query made by the Area Sales Manager on 29.1.2018 is not of much significance. It is not in dispute that Smt. Aaychuki maternal grandmother of the petitioner's husband owns 168 sq.yards of land in the village Jodhiyasi. Certified copy of the registered sale deed executed in favour of Smt. Aaychuki has been placed on record by the petitioner with her rejoinder and there is no reason to doubt the veracity of this document. It is not in dispute that Smt. Aaychuki maternal grandmother of the petitioner's husband owns 168 sq.yards of land in the village Jodhiyasi. Certified copy of the registered sale deed executed in favour of Smt. Aaychuki has been placed on record by the petitioner with her rejoinder and there is no reason to doubt the veracity of this document. The size of the plot required for showroom is 3x4.5 meters as per the guidelines. The definition of members of the family unit as stipulated in the dearlership guidelines is reproduced herein-below: ^^foKkiu ;k 'kqf}i= ¼;fn dksbZ gks½ esa ;FkkmfYyf[kr vkosnu tek djus dh vafre frfFk dks vkosnd ds ikl mlds uke ls@ifjokj bdkbZ ds lnL; ¼ik=rk ekunaM ds cgq&Mhyjf'ki@fMLVªhC;wVjf'ki fu;e esa ;FkkifjHkf"kr½@ekrk&firk ¼lkSrys HkkbZ o lkSryh cgu 'kkfey gS½ ,oa nknk&nknh ¼ekr`i{k ,oa fir`i{k nksuksa½] HkkbZ@cgu ¼lkSrys HkkbZ o lkSryh cgu 'kkfey½] iq=@iq=h ¼lkSryk iq=@lkSryh iq=h 'kkfey gS½] vkosnd ;k thoulkFkh ¼fookfnr vkosnd ds ekeys esa½ ds nkekn@cgq ds uke mijksDr 'kCn ^^LokfeRo** ds vUrxZr ;FkkifjHkkf"kr Li"V LokfeRo vkosnd ds ikl gksuk pkfg,A Åij ;FkkmfYyf[kr ifjokj ds lnL;ksa }kjk LokfeRo@lg&LokfeRo ds ekeys esa ifjokj ds lnL;ksa dh lgefr laca/kh ?kks"k.kk vko';d gksxhA ;fn tehu vkonsd@vkosnd ds ifjokj bdkbZ ¼cgq&Mhyjf'ki@fMLVªhC;wVjf'ki fu;e esa ;FkkifjHkkf"kr½ ds lnL;@ekrk&firk ,oa nknk&nknh ¼ekr`i{k ,oa fir`i{k nksuksa½ ;k fdlh vU; O;fDr;ksa ds uke la;qDr LokfeRo dh gS vkSj vkosnd@vkosnd ds ifjokj ds bdkbZ ekrk&firk ,oa nknk&nknh ¼ekr`i{k ,oa fir`i{k nksuksa½ ds uke dh tehu dk fgLlk vko';d Mkbesa'ku lfgr tehu dh vko';drk dks iwjk djrk gS rks xksnke ,oa 'kks:e dh og tehu Hkh vius ds :i esa ik=rk ds fy, ;ksX; gS] c'krsZ vU; Lokfe;ksa us uksVjh fd;s gq, 'kiFk&i= ds :i esa ^^vukifRr Áek.k&i=** tek fd, tk,aA** 11. Manifestly, in this situation, the applicant would have to submit NOC owned by a family member concerned. The basic family unit defined in Clause-T of the definitions contained in the distributorship guidelines means the applicant, his/her spouse and unmarried sons and daughters. As per the guidelines, the spouse of the applicant (who would be the petitioner's husband in the case at hand), is considered to be a co-applicant. The basic family unit defined in Clause-T of the definitions contained in the distributorship guidelines means the applicant, his/her spouse and unmarried sons and daughters. As per the guidelines, the spouse of the applicant (who would be the petitioner's husband in the case at hand), is considered to be a co-applicant. The scope of own land has been expanded by Clause-W of the guidelines which provides that the land owned by the following relatives of the member of the family unit (i) mother-father, (ii) grandparents (maternal/paternal) can also be offered and if the land satisfies the requirements of dimension etc., then the same would be considered a valid offer for setting up of the godown or showroom provided that the owner of the land gives an NOC in form of notarized affidavit. Since the husband of the petitioner is a member of the family unit, manifestly the land belonging to his grandparents either maternal or paternal can be considered to be valid for setting up of the godown keeping in view the scheme of the guidelines. As the petitioner has offered the alternative land of her maternal grandmother Smt. Aaychuki as the alternative piece of land for setting up of the godown/showroom, her offer has to be considered as meeting the requirements of law. 12. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the firm opinion that the petitioner is undoubtedly entitled to offer the land owned by her husband's grandparents (maternal/paternal) for setting up of the dealership godown and showroom. However, this offer would have to be accompanied with the mandatory consent of the family member concerned. Thus, the action of the respondents in including the location Jodhiyasi for fresh draw of lots in the notification (Annex.6) is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents shall give an opportunity to the petitioner to offer land of her maternal grandmother in law located in Jodhiyasi for setting up of the dealership and in case, the requisite No Objection Certificates etc. are filed and the same satisfy the requirements of the dealership guidelines, then the same dealership in question shall be awarded to the petitioner as a consequence of her selection. 13. The writ petition is allowed in these terms. 14. Stay application is disposed of. 15. No order as to costs.