JUDGMENT : 1. The plaintiff Abhishek Thakur instituted a Civil Suit bearing No. 53 of 1999 before this Court. However, through an order made on 12.10.2001, order whereof, becomes extracted hereinafter, the Civil Suit (supra) as became instituted before this Court, rather became transferred to the Court of learned District Judge, Mandi. “The value of the present suit for the purposes of Courtfee and jurisdiction has been fixed at Rs.5,95,600/-. In pursuance of the amendment of the H.P Courts Act vide Amendment Act no. 16 of 2001, the original pecuniary jurisdiction of the high court has been raised to above ten lacs. Under the circumstances, this case is transferred to the Court of District Judge, Mandi, who may either try the same in accordance with law or entrust it to any other court of competent jurisdiction. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Mandi on 19th November, 2001.” 2. In Civil Suit (supra), the plaintiff claimed the making of the hereinafter extracted declaratory decree:- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the suit may be decreed and a decree for declaration may be granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, to the effect that the defendant No. 5 is not a resident of District Mandi and as such is not entitled for grant of Indian Oil retail out for High Speed Diesel and Motor Spirit at Jarol in District Mandi. A decree for prohibitory injunction be also granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, restraining the defendants No. 1 to 4 from issuing lettr of intend, granting the retail outlet for High Speed Diesel & Motor Spirit in favour of the defendant No. 5. In case the letter of intent is issued in the meanwhile a decree for mandatory injunction may be granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants to the effect that the said letter of intent is totally illegal, arbitrary and against the advertisement and guidelines of the defendant No.1 and a decree for mandatory injunction, directing the defendants No.1 -4 to allot/grant the said retail outlet to the plaintiff. The suit may be decreed in favour of the plaintiff with costs.” 3. The learned trial Court concerned through his making a decision thereon, on, 28.12.2005, decreed the plaintiff’s suit. 4. The suit may be decreed in favour of the plaintiff with costs.” 3. The learned trial Court concerned through his making a decision thereon, on, 28.12.2005, decreed the plaintiff’s suit. 4. The aggrieved defendant has constituted there against RFA No. 110 of 2010 before this Court. 5. Moreover co-defendant No.5 one Hamender Pal Singh, has subsequent to the decision supra being made on the Civil Suit (supra), by the learned trial Court, also instituted CWP No. 429 of 2006 before this Court. In the afore writ petition, co-defendant No.5 has prayed for the making of the hereinafter extracted main reliefs, vis-à-vis, him. “(i) Communication dated 13.4.2006 Annexure P-10 may kindly be set aside, quashed and status quo ante for revival of letter of intend, Annexure P-1 dated 28.6.1999, as it existed prior to 13.4.2006 may kindly be restored. (ii) It may kindly be held that letter of intent, agreement, if any, in between respondent No1. and respondent No.4 regarding retail outlet dealership at Jarol, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi is not binding on the petitioner The respondents No.1 to 3 may kindly be directed to take back the possession of said retail outlet from respondent No.4 and handover the possession of said retail out-let to the petitioner till such time as this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper or till the final outcome of judgment, decree dated 28.12.2005 in Civil Suit No. 2/2002 (99)/20/2004 which is under challenge in RFA No. 110/2006 in this Hon’ble Court. (iii) By way of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ a direction may kindly be given to such authority as this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper to probe and fix responsibility on defaulting officer(s) of respondent No.1 for handing over possession of retail out let in question to respondent No.4 when Civil Court by way of judgment dated 28.12.2005, Annexure P-8 has specifically declined mandatory injunction for allotment/grant of retail outlet in question to respondent No.4 and place the report before this Hon’ble Court within such time as this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper and thereafter order such action on the report as this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper. (iv) The respondents may kindly be directed to produce the record of the case, including, documents, if any, executed in between respondent No.1 and respondent No.4 regarding retail out-let in question.” 6. (iv) The respondents may kindly be directed to produce the record of the case, including, documents, if any, executed in between respondent No.1 and respondent No.4 regarding retail out-let in question.” 6. Though after co-defendant No.5 receiving an adverse decision upon the Civil Suit (supra), become constrained to institute there-against RFA No. 110 of 2006 before this Court, therefore, prima-facie when the lis borne in RFA No. 110 of 2006 CWP whereof otherwise completely similar to the one borne in CWP No. 429 of 2006, and which even otherwise became instituted subsequent to the decision being made upon the plaintiff’s suit. Moreover when RFA No. 110 of 2006, as became constituted by co-defendant No.5 against the verdict (supra), as became pronounced upon the plaintiff’s suit (supra) on 23.2.2006, and, obviously prior to his instituting CWP No. 429 of 2006 i.e. on 18.5.2006, before this Court. Therefore, prima-facie the aggrieved co-defendant No.5, given his instituting RFA No. 110 of 2006 before this Court, wherein the cause(s) of action are completely similar to the one(s) as borne in CWP No. 429 of 2006, obviously brings the natural corollary, that CWP No. 429 of 2006 is an inaptly recoursed remedy, by co-defendant No.5, to, claim therein the hereinabove extracted relief(s), as become borne therein(s). 7. Be that as it may since a decision upon RFA No. 110 of 2006, would cap the lis carried in CWP No 429 of 2006, therefore both the afore are amenable for, a conjoint decision becoming pronounced thereon(s). 8. In Civil Suit (supra), the afore extracted declaratory relief became claimed by the plaintiff, on averments, that the condition as set forth in the apposite advertisement, of the allotting agency i.e. defendant No.1, in as much as Indian Oil Corporation, and pointedly appertaining to co-defendant No.5, being a permanent resident of Mandi, for more than five years, becoming not satiated by him. The plaintiff claimed that though, he possessed all the requisite qualification(s), and, imperatively the one stated (supra), yet he became denied, the espoused relief for apposite allotments, by co-defendant No.1. The plaintiff averred that the late father of co-defendant No.5, was in service, and never during his service he resided at his ancestral home, and he also avers that the afore factum, is apparent from the construction of a huge house, by him, known as Gaura Niwas Chakkar. The plaintiff averred that the late father of co-defendant No.5, was in service, and never during his service he resided at his ancestral home, and he also avers that the afore factum, is apparent from the construction of a huge house, by him, known as Gaura Niwas Chakkar. Moreover, it is averred that co-defendant No.5, has throughout his academic pursuits, rather been residing outside District Mandi. Moreover, an entry of the name of co-defendant No.5, in the voter list of Shimla constituency, is averred to carry forward the afore espousal. In addition the plaintiff has contended, that the name of co-defendant No. 5 never existed in the voter list appertaining to District Mandi. Therefore, the plaintiff averred, that the imperative condition (supra) appertaining to co-defendant No. 5, for more than five years residing in District Mandi and, as became borne in the apposite advertisement, rather remained completely un-satiated by co-defendant No.5. 9. In the wake of the afore averment, the plaintiff claimed, the hereinabove decree, being made, vis-à-vis, him and against the defendants concerned. 10. The defendant No.5/appellant herein, in his written statement to the plaint, denied all the afore made averments, as, made therein, and spiritedly contended, that his ancestors are from District Mandi, and, that his ancestral property falls in Village Kalahod, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. Further more he relied upon the record of SDO (Electrical), HPSEB appertaining to account No. KR-359, in the name of Sh. Karam Singh. Moreover, he placed reliance(s) upon the record of the Office of Assistant Engineer IPH, appertaining to account No. A-161 in the name of Sh. K.C Verma. The afore made reliance(s) were contended by co-defendant No. 5 to be rather suggestive of belying the afore-made averments in the plaint. 11. After completion of apposite pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the defendant No. 5 is not eligible for grant of dealership of retail outlet of Indian Oil Corporation at village Jarol, Tehsil Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P being not resident of District Mandi? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Mandatory injunction as prayed ?OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPP 4. Whether the suit has not been property valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD 5. Whether the suit is hit by delay and latches. If so, its effect? OPD. 6. Relief.” 12. OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Mandatory injunction as prayed ?OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPP 4. Whether the suit has not been property valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD 5. Whether the suit is hit by delay and latches. If so, its effect? OPD. 6. Relief.” 12. The learned trial Court after appreciating evidence, as become adduced thereon(s), by the parties, whereon(s) whom the onus became cast, proceeded to decree the plaintiff’s suit. 13. It is not controverted amongst the contesting litigants, that in the apposite advertisement, an imperative condition became embodied, entailing upon the aspirants concerned, to ensure theirs proving the trite factum of theirs holding residence(s), in District Mandi for more than five years. 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in a case reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2583 titled as Bhagwan Dass v. Kamal Abrol, did hold an occasion, to, dwell upon the condition borne therein, rather completely similar to the one as becomes embodied in the extant lis, and, it made therein clear expostulations of law, that the apposite condition, as similar to the condition (supra), does enjoin, upon, the aspirant concerned, to, establish his residing in the District concerned, only in the actual sense, and, not in any other sense. Moreover, it is also expostulated therein, that the criteria of residence, within the District concerned also makes it incumbent, upon the aspirant concerned, to hold a de facto residence, within the District concerned, and that his mere connection with the apposite place, on account of the aspirant concerned vicariously holding some ancestral property, within the District concerned, rather would not establish the imperative condition (supra), almost similar to the condition, as, carried in the verdict (supra), hence becoming cogently satiated. 13. In the present case, the necessary eligibility criterion requires the applicant to be a resident of Kangra District. The advertisement inviting the applications has not defined the same and hence it would be necessary to see the intention of the farmers of the eligibility criteria to understand the true meaning or the sense for which the word ‘resident’ is used or as to why the criteria for resident is put as an eligibility criteria for allotment of LPG. The advertisement inviting the applications has not defined the same and hence it would be necessary to see the intention of the farmers of the eligibility criteria to understand the true meaning or the sense for which the word ‘resident’ is used or as to why the criteria for resident is put as an eligibility criteria for allotment of LPG. In the presence case the intention of the framers appears to be to provide employment or source of earning for the residents of the kangra district in the form of LPG dealership/distributorship. The eligibility criterion requires the person to be a resident of Kangra district only in the actual sense and not in any other sense. What is required to fulfill the eligibility criteria of the residence is that the person should be a de facto residence and not to have the mere connection with the place on account of her husband having some personal and ancestral property in Kangra. There is no findings recorded by the Court that the husband of respondent No.1 is permanently residing at Kangra or has permanent abode in Kangra. From the finding arrived at by the High Court it can be said that her husband having ancestral property in kangra is a visitor to that place and occasionally resides there from a few days. Respondent No.1 prima facie appears to be permanent resident of Mandi since her name appears in the voter’s list of Mandi and that she has been drawing her ration from Mandi as per the case set up by the appellants. It is further clear that the intention for providing employment and source of earning to the residents of the place would be fulfilling only if the person is actually living in Kangra and not by his/her remote connection to the place. It may also be seen that another eligibility criteria is that the person should not be partner or having any dealership or distributorship agency in any petroleum company and therefore the dealership/distributorship has to be allotted to the person who does not hold any other dealership/distributorship agency of any other petroleum company. This term indicates that the corporation wants that the dealership at a particular place have to be handled by that person which would necessarily require the personal presence of that person at the place of business. This term indicates that the corporation wants that the dealership at a particular place have to be handled by that person which would necessarily require the personal presence of that person at the place of business. The notice of intend issued to the respondent No.1 on March 3, 988 further clarifies this requirement when it says that the dealer is to be a full time working earlier which necessitates the permanent resident at a place for which the dealership liences is given. When the agency requires full time working dealer it would be only possible if the personal actually resides in kangra district and not working through agent or servants engaged for the said purpose. This further indicates in the dealer is required to be a de facto resident of the place from where the dealership licence is to be issued and it is not permissible to have casual connection or temporary residence at that place.” 15. However, in the face of the afore verdict(supra), it has to be established, whether the dependence, as, made upon record (supra) by co-defendant No. 5, does cogently establish, that the latter was holding an actual residence or a de facto residence, for the relevant period of time, hence within District Mandi, and also it has to be gathered, from the evidence existing on record, whether merely on account of his ancestral property being located in District Mandi, rather his holding only a casual or de jure connection therewith, or his holding a de facto connection therewith, rather in the real, and actual sense. 16. In determining the afore factum, the learned trial Court, had concluded that co-defendant No.5, became not enabled through evidence on record, to claim that he falls within the ambit of the afore expostulation of law, to be hence holding a de facto or an actual residence in District Mandi. 17. The plaintiff’s evidence is completely suggestive of co-defendant No. 5 rather holding only a de jure connection with ancestral property located in District Mandi. 18. However, the evidence as is relied upon by the defendant No. 5 became repelled by the learned trial Court. Nonetheless, the learned counsel for defendant No. 5, has contended, that the dispelling of the probative vigor of the records (supra) by the learned trial Court, is ridden with a vice of impropriety. 19. 18. However, the evidence as is relied upon by the defendant No. 5 became repelled by the learned trial Court. Nonetheless, the learned counsel for defendant No. 5, has contended, that the dispelling of the probative vigor of the records (supra) by the learned trial Court, is ridden with a vice of impropriety. 19. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter the afore made submission is discounted. 20. A perusal of the testification, as became rendered by co-defendant No.5, does unveil, qua his admitting, that he has taken an insurance policy, and, also his mentioning therein his address as Lower Chakkar, Shimla. Moreover he has also admitted, in his cross-examination, that he had been running business in Shimla. Consequently, in addition rather with co-defendant No. 5 also applying for grant of retail dealership in Shimla, and therewith his filing an affidavit, with echoing being carried therein, that he is a permanent resident of Shimla. Cumulatively hence, singularly upon the afore score, the plaintiff’s suit was amenable for being decreed. 21. Be that as it may, D5W1/A, also does not hold, any evidentiary tenacity, as, it has been proven by D5W1 Sh. Hira Lal, Tehsildar Sundernagar, who however has admitted, that he has neither signed it nor issued it. Since he also in his cross-examination rather feigns ignorance, as to the record from where the said certificate became issued, thereupon the afore exhibit is of no avail to co-defendant No.5. 22. D5W2 Sh. Mahant Ram, though has proved the consumption of electricity at the ancestral home of co-defendant No.5. However, merely upon the afore factum, it cannot be concluded, that the consumption of electricity, at the ancestral home of co-defendant No. 5, is rather completely suggestive that co-defendant No.5 continued to stay at his ancestral home, especially when the apposite meter is installed in the name of Karam Singh. In view of the inferences (supra) as becomes garnered from the admission(s) (supra) carried in the cross-examination of co-defendant No.5, and also from, the factum of his applying for the grant of retail dealership at Shimla, and, therewith his appending an affidavit, with a candid disclosure therein(s), that his being a resident of Shimla, thereupon, also the testimony of D5W2, is inconsequential. 23. 23. Moreover, the entry in the voter list, and, in the Pariwar register, with echoings therein, vis-à-vis, the name of co-defendant No.5, are only ministerial acts performed by the concerned, and do not also rip the efficacy of the inference(s) supra as made by this Court. 24. Besides reliance by co-defendant No. 5, upon, D5W5/A enclosing therein, the, Bonafide Himachali Certificate qua co-defendant No.5, does also likewise fail to establish, the factum of the plaintiff for the requisite number of years, as, embodied in the apposite condition carried in the requisite advertisement, becoming provenly established by co-defendant No. 5. Consequently also any legal effect thereof rather become completely waned, through the afore made inference by this Court. 25. It is imperative to assign sanctity, to the affidavit accompanying the application, as made by co-defendant No.5, before the allotting agency concerned, wherein he sought the grant of retail dealership at Shimla, rather with a graphic disclosure therein, of his being a permanent resident, of Shimla. The affidavit (supra) has to be assigned the completest solemnity and sanctity, obviously, when it became validly signatured by him. Therefore, on anvil (supra) all the dependence(s) (supra), as, made by co-defendant No.5, do completely loose their apposite evidentiary vigor. 26. The effect of the afore made conclusion, is that the afore expostulation of law carried, in the verdict (supra) as made by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in as much as co-defendant No.5, becoming enjoined to establish that he held de facto or actual residence within District Mandi, has, however, remained unestablished nor is proven by clinching evidence, relied upon by co-defendant No.5. Contrarily the evidence adduced by the plaintiff is clearly suggestive of co-defendant No.5, holding only a casual or a de-jure connection with his ancestral home, within District Mandi. Therefore, co-defendant No. 5 cannot become capitalized to make any valid argument, that he was ever within the requisite period of time, hence holding any residence in the actual sense or in the Decided on : facto sense hence within District Mandi. 27. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal as well as in the writ petition, conspicuously when the name of the plaintiff is hence occurring at the appropriate notch of the panel prepared by the allotting agency, hence he became entitled to the grant of dealership, and, the same are accordingly dismissed. 27. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal as well as in the writ petition, conspicuously when the name of the plaintiff is hence occurring at the appropriate notch of the panel prepared by the allotting agency, hence he became entitled to the grant of dealership, and, the same are accordingly dismissed. The impugned verdict is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications are disposed of accordingly.