JUDGMENT : Bhargav D. Karia, J. 1. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. Munjaal Bhatt waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. 2. Having regard to the controversy involved in the present case which lies in a very narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: "(A) Yours Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of prohibition and/or a writ in the nature of prohibition and/or a writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus to quash and set aside the orders communication dated 09.09.2019 issued by respondent no. 2. (B) Yours Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of prohibition and/or a writ in the nature of prohibition and/or a writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent corporation to permit the petitioner to offer suitable alternate shop/land for the purpose of showroom in connection with advertisement dated 16.06.2017 and consequent selection of the petitioner in view of communication dated 16.01.2018. (C) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent corporation not to proceed further for redraw and/or re-advertisement in connection with advertisement dated 16.06.2017 and consequence selection of the petitioner in view of communication dated 16.01.2018. (D) An ex-parte ad interim relief in terms of prayer (C) above may kindly be granted (E) Such other and further relief/s as may be deemed just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be granted." 4. Short facts of the case are that the petitioner pursuant to advertisement dated 16th June, 2017 applied for LPG distributorship of Indian Oil Corporation, Surat (2). By letter dated 16th January, 2018, the petitioner was informed that he has been selected for allotment of the distributorship. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent issued a letter/communication/order dated 9th September, 2019 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that on physical verification of the plot bearing Survey No. 92, Plot No. 1367 which is about 11.9 x 4.5 mtrs. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent issued a letter/communication/order dated 9th September, 2019 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that on physical verification of the plot bearing Survey No. 92, Plot No. 1367 which is about 11.9 x 4.5 mtrs. situated at Om Nagar society, Kharvasa road, Dindoi, District Surat, which was to be used by the petitioner for the purpose of showroom, it was found that dimension of plot area was 39.03 sq. mtrs, out of which owner of the shop had executed sale deed in favour of the petitioner herein for 20 sq. mtrs area whereas another lease was executed in favour of one Dhavalkumar Maheshbhai Patel also for 20 sq. mtrs. Therefore, there cannot be space of 40 sq. mtrs in a plot of 39.03 sq. mtrs of land for showroom. It was observed in the said communication that the area of land for which lease document has been executed is more than the land area available on record resulting into overlapping of some portion of the land leased to two applicants for same location. 6. Heard learned advocate Mr. Prabhav Mehta for the petitioner and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Manish Bhatt with learned advocate Mr. Munjaal Bhatt for the respondents. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Prabhav Mehta for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has submitted lease deed executed in his favour which is duly registered with the office of Sub-Registrar and as per the said lease deed, the petitioner is to operate his show-room for the purpose of LPG distributorship. He further submitted that there are three shops existing on the aforesaid land. It was therefore, pointed out that the petitioner has taken one of the shops on lease and identical lease deed is executed for other shop as the measurements of the shops are the same. It was submitted that the objection was raised by the respondents to reject the candidature of the petitioner without any basis. Learned advocate for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the tax bills issued by Surat Municipal Corporation for each of the two shops which show that there are different tenement numbers and accordingly, it was submitted that the shops for which the petitioner has entered into lease deed is a separate distinct shop which is to be used for the purpose of LPG distributorship. He further submitted that he has filed this petition on 16th September, 2019 and the petition was circulated on 23rd September, 2019 and redraw was done subsequently after filing of this petition and after this Court has heard the advocates for both the petitioners as well as the respondents and it was understood that redraw which may take place would be subject to outcome of the petition. 8. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Manish Bhatt for the respondents submitted that on inquiry made by field verification, it was revealed that the say of the petitioner is true that there are three shops. However, the petitioner has not submitted any letter showing permission to use such shop nor the petitioner has produced any document granting permission for the purpose of use of the shop. He further submitted that the petitioner is also not able to satisfy as to how in a plot admeasuring 39.03 sq. mtrs, shops more than the area of the land can be situated. He also invited the attention of the Court to the fact that re-draw for allocation has already been held by the respondents. 9. Having regard to the submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties, it is not in dispute that there are two different shops having two different tenement numbers for which two different lease deeds are executed and one of which is executed in favour of the petitioner who is selected for allotment of LPG distributorship. It is also an admitted position that as per the bills produced on record, area of usage is 15.61 sq. mtrs only. Therefore, what is stated in the lease deed is not correct as per area of usage stated in tax bill issued by the Surat Municipal Corporation for levy of property tax. The respondents ought to have taken into consideration actual measurement as per tax bill. Therefore, reason which is given for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is non-existent and as such impugned order is required to be quashed as the same is passed only on the basis of lease deed executed by the petitioner without taking into account the actual measurement of the shop in question. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. Redraw for allocation of LPG distributorship would also be of no consequence as the same was conducted pursuant to the impugned order which is now quashed and set aside. The petitioner is however, required to submit the required documents which may be called for by the respondents for the purpose of usage of shop in question so as to avoid any future complications for operation of LPG distributorship. 11. Petition is accordingly disposed of. Rule is made absolute to aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.